# plot lands



## tlr (Feb 20, 2008)

I would like to see our license fee for hunting raised and the money spent on plot lands. Either to get new plots or to give the owners more money so that they keep what they have in plots! This money could be used with the CRP land also to try and intice more in plots. I am sure that this woould have to go through the legislator, but if enough agree maybe their representives woould listen and bring it up in the form of a bill.The cost of the license is the least expensive part of our hunting cost.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Either that or allow the GNF to sell a special PLOTS only stamp, where the proceeds go directly to the PLOTS program and the PLOTS land can only be hunted by those who purchase the stamp. Maybe there are some people out there who do not want to hunt on PLOTS land, should they be forced to pay for it?

I would also like to see the no net gain law removed so that the GNF can buy land rather then rent, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime.

I'm not exactly sure what the answer is for increased access, but I do know that it is becoming more of a problem every year. I hate to think of what it will be like in another 20 years.


----------



## BigDDL (Sep 29, 2004)

I agree that PLOTS is a great program for land access and would have no problem with a modest license fee increase. I also would have no problem with the sale of a PLOTS stamp for access to PLOTS land as long as I can also purchase a CRP stamp for access to posted CRP land that my taxes are paying for...


----------



## MN goose killa (Sep 19, 2008)

your first post is making accusations like that? what is wrong with u?


----------



## MN goose killa (Sep 19, 2008)

wow i cant help but laugh. when you are gunna argue be sensitive.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

angus one said:


> *edited*


Darwyn Myers...(aka Angus one, Angus 1, Mauser or whatever other user name you are going to come up with after you get booted from this site again and again...)
Please do us all favor and obey the forum rules or better yet just go away...and stay away. :wink:


----------



## MN goose killa (Sep 19, 2008)

get any of em and he should be gone. if dblklk is right u should be gone already.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> he'll throw ya off just like plainsman would


 

It gives me great joy booting people who come back under many other names. People who can not be respectful, but are possessed and just can't give up with the nasty posts. I have not followed this thread, but was alerted to it. 
Good-bye angus1, aka angus one, aka 308w -- did I forget any? It's not that a lot of people are agreeing, it's that they are all the same person trying to create the illusion.  or is that delusion?

Good job dblkluk. I completely deleted the offensive posts.


----------



## MN goose killa (Sep 19, 2008)

It's not that a lot of people are agreeing, it's that they are all the same person trying to create the illusion.  or is that delusion?.[/quote]

haha


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

My guess.....he'll be back,if only for a short time.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

BigDDL said:


> as long as I can also purchase a CRP stamp for access to posted CRP land that my taxes are paying for...


I agree. But boy would that open a can of worms with landowners, especially some of our western landowners.


----------



## Grumann (Dec 21, 2008)

your tax dollars are paying for a program not the land that is in it. Crp was intended to keep questionable land out of production , If the farmer/rancher can't us it neither should the sportsman . Landowners pay taxes to you know.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Grumann said:


> If the farmer/rancher can't us it neither should the sportsman . Landowners pay taxes to you know.


Evidently you haven't been paying attention to all the haying and grazing going on the last 10 years. :eyeroll:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Evidently you haven't been paying attention to all the haying and grazing going on the last 10 years.


Maybe you should take a look at the contracts and see what is required of the operators before going off half cocked as usual :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> > Evidently you haven't been paying attention to all the haying and grazing going on the last 10 years.
> 
> 
> Maybe you should take a look at the contracts and see what is required of the operators before going off half cocked as usual :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


Maybe once again you should learn how to read and going off half cocked.....He said farmers can't use it.I said,yes they can. :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

KEN W said:


> Evidently you haven't been paying attention to all the haying and grazing going on the last 10 years. :eyeroll:


My contract has a provision whereby 1/3 of the acreage can be hayed every year or the entire acreage can be hayed once every three years. There is a payment connected with this as well. I typically contact area ranchers and if they are willing to make the payment required under the contract to the NRCS office, they can do the haying.

Is this what you are calling use? I call it complying with the contract.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

redlabel said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> > Evidently you haven't been paying attention to all the haying and grazing going on the last 10 years. :eyeroll:
> ...


Complying.......to act in accordance order or rule.In other words,you have to do it.Does it say you MUST hay it every 3 years???Sorry but if you or your neighbors cut it.....YOU ARE USING IT to feed your cattle.If I'm out there with my shotgun hunting,I am using it.Real simple.Leave it as is and you aren't using it.Your choice.But you are not ordered to use it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Merry Christmas Ken :lol: :lol:

Under my CP 10 conracts I'm allowed to hay 1/3 every year or once every 3 years. Or it must be burned every 5 years. My CP 23 contracts do not allow haying except for drought emergency. However I am required to burn it every 5 years. So my question to you Ken is would you rather a rancher who needs feed be allowed to hay it, or would you rather se it go up in smoke???? Personally I would rather help a rancher out. :lol:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Merry Christmas G/O I agree haying makes sense ranchers need all the help they can get, can you explain why it has to be burned.. thanks.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Merry Christmas to you G/O.....you can do whatever is OK to do.That's not the point here.You made this into something else entirely.I know farmers can hay 1/3 every year or all of it every three years.That has nothing to do with what I said.....Look again at Grumann's post.He said if farmers can't use it.All I am saying is.....yes they can use it as you and Label have said.Haying or grazing is using it isn't it?

I've never heard of the rules saying you had to burn it every 5 years if it is not hayed.Is that something new?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, enclosed is a copy of one of my fields in cp-23, this was dated in 1999. You will notice that herbacous cover wil be manipulated once for new contract and twice for established, to rejuvenate grass species.That answers your question Bobm. Manipulation will be done by burning,clip and removal, (mowing,bailing, hauled to the end of the field and then burnt, Or light disking.

Now as to Grummans post he would have to clarify the issue. The way I read it was, the key word here is "if". ,


> , If the farmer/rancher can't us it neither should the sportsman


What I felt he was referring to was when the ranchers were stopped from haying last summer thanks to the National Wildlife Federation. The way I took him to say was "if" we can't hay then hunting should not be allowed either. I guess he will have to clarify himself on this one.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Agreed.....from where I'm at.....farmers are using it if they hay it.Hunters are using it if they hunt it.


----------



## Grumann (Dec 21, 2008)

I meant it the way I wrote it. IF the rancher can only hay a thrid every year then the hunters should only hunt a third, I know this would be impossible to enforce. But as g/o pointed out he has tracts of land that can not be hayed at all ( unless drought) . IF they can't be hayed they shouldn't be hunted.......


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

From Farm Journal

Betrayed by Our Conservation Partners
11/1/2008
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and other environmental groups who successfully sued to
prevent the release of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land for emergency haying and grazing have jeopardized a beneficial partnership.

CRP would never have existed if environmental groups and farmers had not tried to understand each other and agreed to work together. I know that's true because I helped build the ag/environmental partnership that led to CRP becoming part of the farm bill in 1985, and I've been involved with the partnership ever since.

Before that, relations between the farm and environmental communities were not always smooth. Now, actions like the CRP lawsuit, in which a special-interest group unilaterally interrupts something good for agriculture, will reinsert mistrust in the relationship and move us backward.

Not only was the environmentalists' lawsuit ill-conceived, it also was poorly timed. I and many other farmers had already installed fencing around the CRP acres we intended to graze. That's just money thrown away-on top of the additional cost of forage for our animals.

Sadly, the lawsuit that prevented haying and grazing of CRP also may have detrimental effects for the wildlife the environmental groups think they are protecting.

Haying helps habitat. From a wildlife perspective, the best thing that could happen to many CRP grasslands would be occasional haying or grazing. Ideally, native grasses-which are planted in many CRP fields-should be burned occasionally for their own good. That is nature's way of revitalizing prairies, keeping native grass stands vigorous and free of invasive species. But burning is impractical, as well as expensive. The next best way to revitalize stands is haying or grazing, which creates better feed and cover for wildlife in the years ahead. 
Our environmental partners have shown they fail to understand this. Nor do they understand that farmers must deal with all natural resources-air, water, weeds, plants, animals and biodiversity.

Perhaps most significant, the wildlife and environmental communities don't understand that farmers and ranchers have to make a living. Many needed this one-time supplement to the livestock feeding program because of exceptionally high feed prices and a very dry West. 
This intervention is not likely to put anyone out of business, but it could be detrimental to wildlife. With commodity prices finally above the break-even level, actions like this could be the indicator farmers need to move out of the CRP program, causing wildlife to lose valuable habitat.

Farmers and ranchers who were counting on forage harvested from some-and only some-of their CRP acres feel betrayed. Working with agriculture to utilize these CRP acres intermittently for the long-term benefit of farmers, wildlife and all other resources would have served both farmers and wildlife much better.

Who owns the land? NWF has revealed itself to be misguided, self-serving and ignorant, forgetting that CRP acres, in the final analysis, belong to farmers. It and other environmental "partners" have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the ecosystem and what farmers, ranchers and forestland owners and operators deal with on a daily basis.

Yes, the wildlife belongs to everyone, but they live under my roof. They look to me for feed and cover, not to NWF. It is my hay they share with my livestock in the winter when snow covers their normal range areas. It is my grain in upland bird feeders that helps them through rough winters like the one we experienced last year. The ponds and riparian areas are ones that I developed for waterfowl to use and share with other wildlife.

I have spent more than 35 years promoting conservation programs, and it saddens me to see one as successful as CRP hijacked by a special-interest organization. It grieves me to say it, but I urge all farmers to consider not re-enrolling their CRP acreage when it expires and to not enroll any more acres in the program.

Our so-called partners, such as NWF, have shown they are not to be trusted. They have demonstrated they couldn't care less about farmers and their survival.

Another partner, USDA, also has failed us by not anticipating potential challenges to the emergency haying and grazing announcement and by not reacting quickly and decisively to counter the injunction that resulted. Farmers and ranchers now wonder which clientele the agency exists to serve-farmers or wildlife.

America's farmers, ranchers and private forestland owners will continue to be generous caretakers of the land that has been entrusted to us for a short period of time. We will continue to share our bounty with the 70% of our nation's wildlife that makes its home on America's private lands. We were caring for wildlife long before these self-anointed saviors of wildlife, and we will be there tomorrow, with or without CRP.

I don't do business with people who don't know or don't care about the public benefits my farm brings to
everyone and everything. From now on, when it comes to CRP and NWF, count me out.


----------



## Grumann (Dec 21, 2008)

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excellant article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

There are many good farmers, but a few very bad farmers. Good farmers farm the land, but every year there is a higher percentage that farm the farm programs. As taxpayers there is something we can do without infringing on their freedoms and landowner rights.

First stop rewarding poor land stewardship. The Nations Resource Conservations Service has soils maps of the entire United States. If ----if we taxpayers are going to continue to pay grain support prices it should only be on land suitable for crops. Often very poor land is broken up because currently there is so much protection that they can't loose. Stop paying any support of any kind on highly erodable lands. Offer a conservation plan for those types of lands. If they derive other money from those lands subtract it from the government payment. Do not allow this land to become beneficial to a few, but protect it for society by leaving it open to hiking, bird watching, fishing, hunting etc. If society pays for it they should benefit from it. No one is putting a gun to their head they can enroll or not as they choose. Freedom of choice.

Currently we can not import milk from Minnesota so that it would be much cheaper in the grocery store for the consumer. I think protectionist laws need to go. Farming is a business and nothing else. It is no different than owning a hardware store, a Dairy Queen, or a gas station. We complain about the car company buy out, but we throw billions into agriculture every year. It's time this becomes a two way street. If not, then open the doors and lets go free market and forget the current socialist program for agriculture. Canada wheat taste good, and so does Brazil beef. The American taxpayer has been getting the agriculture shaft for years and then we see posts berating us because we are infringing on their rights. I think taxpayers have rights also.

Actually I like some of these posts. They tell us what landowners think of us. It's getting that to many think we are suckers. They think we have to have them. The world is ready to bring their commodities to our door. I think Obama is more concerned about the inner city and less concerned about rural areas. Farming is going to need support in the coming four years more than they ever have. Maybe it's time to be nice and not tell sportsmen what a holes they are.

Oh, as far as burning. It is more beneficial than haying. Also, it' isn't that difficult. I can walk out my door in late August and September and count a dozen fires all around my rural home. Cattails, fields, waterways, ditches, many acres going up in smoke every day, any time of day, and with 20 mph winds. It's odd how some of the same people who want to shut down hunting because of fire danger are out burning much of their land.



> We were caring for wildlife long before these self-anointed saviors of wildlife, and we will be there tomorrow, with or without CRP.


That's true for some, but for many wildlife doesn't flourish because of them, but rather in spite of them. Go north of Devils Lake and try find a wetland without a drain in it. Then when Devils Lake floods who do they want to sue? The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service that's who. Why? Because the refuge is flooding out onto private land. Why is that happening? Because the state will not give them a permit to let the water pass to Devils Lake. If it does they want to sue the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This water came from drained wetlands. Trace it to it's source and sue them.
Isn't it odd how one farmer upstream drains all his wetlands and when a farmer downsteam gets flooded he wants to sue the U. S. Fish and Wildlife. Does that make any sense? No, but they know where the money is. They only need to threaten to have a few million thrown their way.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> Often very poor land is broken up because currently there is so much protection that they can't loose. Stop paying any support of any kind on highly erodable lands. Offer a conservation plan for those types of lands. If they derive other money from those lands subtract it from the government payment. Do not allow this land to become beneficial to a few, but protect it for society by leaving it open to hiking, bird watching, fishing, hunting etc. If society pays for it they should benefit from it. No one is putting a gun to their head they can enroll or not as they choose. Freedom of choice.


There are people out in the country who do not want to participate in government programs. They would rather make their money from the market place. not the mail box. That is why they choose to raise domestic birds, fish, elk, buffalo and deer, etc. on those marginal lands.

Plainsman, I thank God most days that you do not speak for or represent all the people in our society. LOL


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, I thank God most days that you do not speak for or represent all the people in our society. LOL


Thanks to the mentality (may not include you DG) of some people more and more of society is thinking like me. As a matter of fact many are, but few are willing to speak up publicly,----- yet. That will change. 
What does the future hold for farmers. I am afraid people will keep quiet until they are to angry, and then they will go to far. We keep hearing landowners complain about us, and now we hear sportsmen beginning to not support agriculture as much as they have in the past. That support will dwindle further. For many years there has been a symbiotic relationship between farmers and hunters, but in the last few years the outfitters are turning it into a parasitic relationship. Only the outfitters benefit. Hunters loose places to hunt and farmers loose support. Meanwhile the outfitter doesn't care. 
Yes, I would like to turn back the clock to where mutual respect was the order of the day. I get on landowners cases, not because I disrespect them, but because I want to be their canary in the coal mines. Your on the crappy end of the stick, and smart mouths are pushing on the excelerator to the bottom.


----------



## catfisherman2 (Apr 17, 2008)

> That support will dwindle further. For many years there has been a symbiotic relationship between farmers and hunters, but in the last few years the outfitters are turning it into a parasitic relationship. Only the outfitters benefit. Hunters loose places to hunt and farmers loose support. Meanwhile the outfitter doesn't care.
> Yes, I would like to turn back the clock to where mutual respect was the order of the day. I get on landowners cases, not because I disrespect them, but because I want to be their canary in the coal mines. Your on the crappy end of the stick, and smart mouths are pushing on the excelerator to the bottom.


You know, this is a great statement covering the duration of the last ten years or so. I completly agree with this statement as it seems to get harder and harder for many people to hunt. If a person pays for a license, where do they hunt? Do they need to include an access fee with the license? If that is the case, we could pay a little more for PLOTS that would be included with our license to ensure that sportsmen have a place to hunt. Hopefully it doesn't turn into everyone posts their land for hunters to pay and you only hunt if you pay...why the need for a license if you have nowhere to utilize it then? The greater outcome is the economic structure. When people give up on hunting, what happens to those stores that rely on hunters spending dollars? What happens when those retailers who try to support organizations such as DU, RMEF, Pheasants Forever, don't have enough funding to donate towards their cause? I can go on and on but the picture is a big circle.

That fact is that sportsmen need somewhere to hunt. There are select few that will be disrespectful and ruin it for many others...that is with anything though.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

If you have a better way how to farm we would like to hear it. Is our present system so bad. You said you would like to turn back the clock. I'll bet the Russians wish the same thing.

Here is the story from Farm Journal.

Ukrainians see their agricultural industry flexing its muscles, evolving out of the old inefficient collective farms left when the Soviet system collapsed in 1991. There is apparent potential for modern technology to turn it into a grain and oilseeds powerhouse, but how the country will achieve that status remains the big question.

A group of U.S. farmers on a tour organized by Farm Journal sister publication Top Producer recently visited farms from north to south along Ukraine's midsection.

They rode the potholed rural roads to see mechanized agriculture, as well as farmers hand-raking hay piles and driving horse-drawn carts. They met Ukrainian farmers with pioneering spirits and adventurous foreigners, including Americans, who siphon big money into huge farms cobbled together from the old collectives. The group was wowed by 1,000-hectare (2,471 acre) fields worked by high-tech machines.

At the same time, they witnessed poor stands and easily correctable agronomic mistakes. Ingrained problems in the culture troubled the travelers, too, with farms spending big money on security and dealing with myriad employee difficulties.

"There's a ton of opportunity in this country," says Michael Swanson, production manager of Kyiv-Atlantic Ukraine, a grain and livestock farm, feed mill and elevator in Myronivka.

Swanson, who ran a family dairy in Ellsworth, Wis., has worked for the past year for this operation, co-owned by David Sweere of Wayzata, Minn., and a group of Danes. In that short period of time, he's witnessed a considerable amount of change.

Currently, Ukrainian land cannot be sold. Large farms are assembled with hundreds, even thousands, of landlords who were given small acreages from the old collective farms in a 1999 reform. These farm operations generally sign long-term leases with the collective farm members. However, with widespread corruption in the government, there's no assurance the justice system will honor leases in case of a dispute.

"There are three large groups I know of moving in this area. One farms 250,000 hectares and plans to have a million hectares in three years. The others plan to have 500,000 hectares each in two years. Ag land can't be sold here, but the cooperative farms are selling out. The big guys are picking them off fast. They're financing them and bringing in management teams," Swanson says.

Each year, the Ukrainian parliament considers laws allowing land to be sold or used as collateral. And each year, nothing gets accomplished, says Alexander Tarassevych, an agriculture specialist working for the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv.

"The big corporate farms are emerging here and there. The average is 80,000 hectares," he says. "They're coming in as big money from the U.S. and Europe. They're investing a lot of money and know how to work the land and purchase machinery."

Wade Hubers, a North Carolinian on the Top Producer trip, says what he saw in Ukraine reminds him of Brazil when he visited that emerging agricultural power in 1989.

"The old trucks, the way they handle the grain. It's so similar, it's eerie," Hubers says. "They can get money easy enough if they get their political system solved. Just like that, they could get up to speed quicker than we can imagine."

Only time will tell whether western-style efficiency equates to success.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't see any relationship. Your talking about backwards political communities, and old technology. What I am talking about is not capabilities, but poor decisions from land use perspective. I am talking about light soils that would perhaps produce 20 bushel per acre wheat and erode terribly while doing it. Much of this type of land has been broken up because the agricultural program will guarantee the landowner at least income from county average. It's the program that is screwed up. No program should reward poor land use. If both the landowner and the government agree that land is to poor for production and put it in CRP why do they now want to put it back into production? There should never be support prices, or subsidizing of any kind on that land again as long as it's in crop production. 
I have friends and relatives that were ticked when their county average went from 42 bushel per acre down to 36. The reason that happened was because to many farmers were breaking up land that should have stayed pasture or hay land. As farm land it couldn't produce, but they knew the government would cover them if they lost on it. What is it every ten years the recalculate the county average? Anyway, that poor land put into production brought down the county average. That not only ripped off the taxpayer, it cheated their farming neighbors also. Now when good land has a bad year those farmers who practiced good land management suffer because of the guys who farmed the system. 
A good example of farming the system is a neighbor who keeps planting beans that will not make it in North Dakota. He gets a bigger profit from the government payment for his failure than he could raising wheat, corn, barley, or anything that will actually grow in North Dakota. 
I'm not arguing that any of you don't know how to farm. I am saying a small percentage don't give a crap and farm the system. If they can make a bigger profit of the taxpayer than they can a legitimate crop there are a few that do it. Most of you work hard for your money, but like every other profession their are a few bad apples. Those bad apples have a welfare attitude that tells them get the most you can any way you can. Who cares if your taxpaying neighbor has to pay for your profit. Not all teachers are honest and hard working, the same with police, store clerks, and anyone else. It appears however that farmers are going to stick together. As long as you ( not speaking directly to you, but to everyone) can not admit this and continue to stick together you will not all win, you will all loose.
When the local Coast to Coast store went under here in Jamestown the government wasn't there to guarantee him sales each month. They were not there to give him money when they made no profit. When he did make a profit he paid taxes that went to pay guaranteed profit in farming. Then when he went hunting the guys met him at the door and told him $100 per day per gun. I wonder how he feels about that.

When the majority of society gets fed up something drastic will happen. If this nations gets a combination of socialism and democracy where it can still retain the right to vote you could be in trouble. The majority can do anything it wants. If it wants to there could be no private land ownership in ten years and no landowner rights. You could be a government employee making a GS-5 running a farm for the government. I will predict that if people keep getting shafted and all of society knew what a screwed up program is costing them bad things will happen. This isn't a threat, and it isn't what I want to see happen, but it's something those in agriculture need to think about. 
The less involved farmers are with government programs the less the government can tell you what to do. The politicians who design these programs are not doing farmers any favors. Some times I look at these things and it's as if the politicians are baiting farmers so they have more control. The problem is how do you get out of it now? Are you in so deep you can't get out? 
The CRP program was intended to be good for people on the land now, and good for future farmers. All of that is in the best interest of all of us (society). However, many are looking at the program being abused now and don't support it as they have in the past. Because of that a jaundiced eye is being cast on all farm programs. The bad apples will loose your support. I often hear how we depend on farmers. I'll tell you what, they depend on us a heck of a lot more. A lot more. Were not looking for a pat on the back, were just looking not to be dumped on. Personally I like mutual respect.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, DG, the Ukraine information was interesting. I have a friend from church who's family spent a couple months for three different years helping farmers in the Ukraine. Now we are establishing two missionaries that are starting a farm orphanage in the Ukraine.

Also, DG, please don't take my comments personal. I often write as if I am talking to someone. Please be assured I am not accusing you personally of bad land practices. Far from it. I have no reason to be disrespectful.

My only point is the things I outlined are happening, and it hurts other farmers, the taxpayer, the economy, and the future of the land and those who farm it next. Also, it's not always the farmers fault. Often it's the government programs that are not well thought out. Remember payment in kind (PIK) under the Reagan administration. The idea was that by taking land out of production it would rest the land and increase the price of farm products through the market. What happened was that many farmers thought the price would rise that year. They went out and broke up their pastures and hay land and guess what happened. We had bumper crops and prices went down. The only thing that suffered was the land. Poor land was put into production and it's today's CRP. When corn went through the roof the farmers wanted out of their contracts. Now the bottom will fall out of corn. Will they want their contracts back. No one else gets out of contracts.

It's not my intent to make enemies of landowners. My hope is that the good ones will agree with me. I know they admit these things to each other. They tell me about it. However, they are all reluctant to talk about it publicly.


----------



## Grumann (Dec 21, 2008)

It's not my intent to make enemies of landowners.???????

Oh please !!!!! I don't believe that for a minute. You have a past of landower hatred.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman
When the majority of society gets fed up something drastic will happen. If this nations gets a combination of socialism and democracy where it can still retain the right to vote you could be in trouble. The majority can do anything it wants. [/quote said:


> The majority has to be careful not to be led around by the nose. There are federally funded steering commitees out there that intend to do just that.
> 
> Look at this: http://audubonaction.org/audubon/notice ... d=10704623
> 
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The Defenders of Wildlife is affiliated with the USGS.


You have to know what your talking about to have credability. Wild statements like the above will not get you taken seriously.

Government agencies have individuals within them that have personal opinions, but government agencies can not be affiliated with controversial activities as your suggesting. They may well work with these people, but as a public agency they have to work with everyone. Federal data is public data, unless of course it must have statistics and interpretation added before it's released. Sometimes things are held back until published by federal scientists so they get to the public unbiased.

All these groups try to influence science, and they try to influence what is published. That is why the research arm of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife was removed from that agency and put into U. S. G. S. Congress and the president didn't want research done by an agency that also did land management and law enforcement. These other two parts may try influence the third.

There are organizations that I respected in the past that have fallen victim to radicals within their ranks. I think the Audubon Society has slowly drifted towards the antihunting crowd. Same with the Sierra Club. When the government had to make a decision on public land in the Badlands a number of thoughts came to my mind before I testified before the Forrest Service and other government officials. My first thought was what will the Sierra Club try do to hunting rights? My second thought was what will local ranchers try do to our hunting rights? Then I thought back upon personal experience. While bow hunting we had four ranchers on horseback chasing cattle ride into our camp. They wanted us to sign a petition and were nasty about it. They didn't ask, they told us what would happen to us if we didn't. About ten years ago a rancher had said he didn't mind us hunting on the land he leased from the government, but his 30/06 didn't like me there. I had to side with the Sierra Club on that one. I didn't like them much, but they were not as crazy as the ranchers I had experience with. The nice ranchers don't take the time to talk to you, it's only the jerks that do. I would bet 90% are good people, but they mind their own business, or perhaps think we don't want to be bothered. I think I will make a point to talk to more of them.

Nope, I never worked with any of the anti-hunting groups thank goodness. I would have perhaps been fired.

DG, I know we didn't agree on the high fence issue, but I think we do agree on far more than you could ever imagine. You notice grumman's remarks, but I hope you know who he is just like I do. Many people get so bitter on one subject that they can't control their temper and get booted. They don't get booted simply from disagreeing. Then they come back under another name simply to cause trouble. Some have come back under five or six different names. Some have set up accounts under a number of names to give the appearance they have people who agree with them, or conversely dislike one individual. Now it appears some are so bitter about the high fence issue that they want to damage some who support them simply for revenge. Sort of cut of their nose to spite their face.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

At teaming.com did you read about how cap and trade is going to generate 500 million to one billion and be turned over to these guys for wildlife conservation. Follow the money. Here is a list of the 501(c)3's created by FDR:

American Fisheries Society 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 
Izaak Walton League of America 
National Audubon Society 
National Wild Turkey Federation 
National Wildlife Federation 
The Nature Conservancy 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
The Wildlife Society 
Wildlife Conservation Society 
Wildlife Management Institute

The reason I asked if you had ever worked with any members of defenders at USGS can be found here:

www.usgs.gov/solutions/climate_change/wildlife.html

I realize these meetings were only hosted by these steering committees.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I realize these meetings were only hosted by these steering committees.


The Defenders of Wildlife was the only red flag in that list for me. Also, the word environmental or ecological as in Ecological society of America raises some red flags for some. Unfortunately those names have been misused by many groups. I think we are all environmentalists because neither you nor I want to drink dirty water, or breath dirty air, but some very goofy groups now call themselves environmentalists. A good way to tell is in their name. When it says society at the end it is normally an indication that they are not emotional nut cases, but scientists. Now don't get me wrong I know many scientists that are more interested in funding than science and are not above going along with what brings in the money. Sometimes you have to know the people to know the difference.

I was speaking of the second list. There are a number of red flags in that first list and I was not aware of the cap and trade thing either. I will get to that sometime in the next couple of days. I'm not going to discourage you a person has to stay on their toes and it's good your doing that. We need more people to take these things serious. If we don't it will no longer be a government of the people or for the people. The big problem is the general public can not tell the difference between legitimate science and the nut jobs. They can't tell, because the nut jobs masquerade as legitimate science, and then sometimes you get real scientists more interested in fame and money than good science. I wish I could tell you there was a way for you to tell the difference. I think private agriculture needs a scientist who can interpret these things and give you an honest answer. Then you must get a fellow who will tell you the truth and not just what you want to hear. I did that, but it wasn't always appreciated.  There is no doubt a few scientists would like to string me up for saying this. I always say I'm doing a good job if everyone hates me equally.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Hey guys. I've been enjoying this thread, and I don't mean to butt-in, but I want something clarified before you get too far from it.

When has the Audubon Society *NOT* been anti-hunting? I realize they support deer hunting, but only because they are forced to acknowledge there is no other feasible way to control the population...especially in the east. I can't think of any other type of hunting they are in favor of, but I could be missing something.

Please explain.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Back in the late 1960's early 1970's I wasn't aware they had an opinion about hunting. I think what happened is a lot of people who enjoy birds, but have no idea what hunting is about have joined Audubon. It's to bad, but I think the organization has contracted an internal cancer and is loosing it's way. I'm afraid emotion of logic has damaged a lot of good organizations. 
If any of you know about Audubon he didn't learn near as much about birds with binoculars as he did with a shotgun. Early biologists who wanted to emulate him often were hunters too.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Csquared

The Audubon does work with the humane society.

http://www.hsus.org/wildlife_abuse/news ... three.html

Michigan Voters Call a Cease-Fire in the War on State Bird of Peace

November 8, 2006

iStock

In a victory for the people and wildlife of Michigan, voters in the Wolverine State carried a ballot initiative to outlaw dove hunting, restoring a century-old tradition of protecting the mourning dove.

The win at the polls culminated a two-year grassroots campaign by The Committee to Keep Doves Protected, a coalition of Michigan humane and civic organizations supported by national animal protection groups including The Humane Society of the United States, which represents more than 300,000 Michigan members.

The campaign became necessary when well-funded, out-of-state hunting groups like the National Rifle Association (headquartered in Virginia), the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (Ohio) and the Safari Club International (Arizona) aimed a lobbying blitz at the state legislature. These outside special interests were seeking to overturn a Michigan tradition that had stood since 1905, when the legislature put mourning doves off limits to hunters by recognizing them as "song birds" rather than a "game birds." In 1998, the people of Michigan reaffirmed the special place these beautiful and gentle birds hold in their esteem when the legislature honored the mourning dove as "Michigan's state bird of peace."

Lobbying for Cruelty

But just five years later, under heavy pressure from the lobbyists, the legislature passed-and Governor Jennifer Granholm signed-a bill reclassifying mourning doves as game birds, setting the stage for Michigan's fields and meadows to become war zones for the state's bird of peace. In the fall of 2004, an estimated 3,000 hunters killed more than 28,000 doves. Since studies have shown a wounding rate of approximately 30 percent in dove hunting, we can conclude that another 8,400 birds were maimed and left to die from loss of blood, infection, dehydration and starvation.

The carnage was pointless. No one has ever claimed that doves are overpopulated; they do not damage crops or gardens; they are not a nuisance-in fact they help control weeds by eating the seeds; and when they are hunted, the little bit of flesh they have is so riddled with shot that few hunters even try to cook and eat them. Dove hunting is not about either wildlife management or food. It is about target practice with living targets. It is killing a harmless and beloved bird for fun.

Mobilized for Doves

In response, The Committee to Keep Doves Protected launched a signature drive to return mourning doves to the protected status they had been granted in Michigan for nearly a century. Volunteers collected 275,000 signatures, 73 percent more than the 159,000 needed to put protection for doves on the ballot. On Election Day, their efforts bore fruit as the people of Michigan told the politicians, the lobbyists, and the out-of-state special interests to keep their hands off of Michigan's mourning doves.

National groups like The Humane Society of the United States pitched in to help out, but local organizations like the Michigan Humane Society (not affiliated with The HSUS) and the Michigan Audubon Society were the heart and soul of this campaign.

"This was a grassroots Michigan effort from start to finish," said Mike Markarian, executive vice president of The HSUS. "The local groups put together the coalition and organized the petition drive. They lined up over a thousand endorsements from humane and civic groups, faith-based groups, and businesses. It was a long, tough campaign, but their faith and determination carried the day. In the final analysis, though, it is the people of Michigan who really deserve the credit. They saw through the propaganda from the supporters of the dove hunt, and they spoke up on Election Day for wildlife and for the Michigan tradition of caring for doves."

There was a lot of fearingmongering about lead shot. Some years ago I downloaded the Michigan Audubon Societys resolutions. The URL doesn't work anymore but here is a brief of what it said:

The preferred ammunition in states where mourning doves are hunted is toxic lead shot. The U.S. Geological and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS) estimates 30% of successful kill is not retrieved and has determined that hunters discharge between five and eight shots for every successful kill. In addition, it is legal to shoot doves over landscape and into open water.

Plainsman,

You worked at the USGS, so whos side are you guys on?

Through the initiative process, dove hunting is now banned in Michigan.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You worked at the USGS, so whos side are you guys on?


The taxpayer, so you better make sure your voice is heard.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I did some checking, and it seems Plainsman may be closer to correct than me...but then what's new?

I learned Audubon was not a sportsman, by our standards anyway. He killed _everything_, but the organization that bears his name was actually born of a group of women after he either failed or lost interest.

I also saw where most consider them "pro-hunting", but they don't act like it as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-9515707.html

http://www.oias.org/mas_for_immediate_release.htm

http://www.landrights.org/OCS/HuntFish/ADN.00-09-25.htm



> Washington -- The Hunting Heritage Protection Act moving through Congress was supposed to be a harmless proposal that evokes the memory of Teddy Roosevelt and reminds Americans of their legacy of hunting on federal land.
> 
> The National Audubon Society says that if the bill, by Rep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., becomes law, families will need to wear bright orange vests when they visit a wildlife refuge
> 
> ...


Looks like Plainsman was right in that they seem to be heading left. I guess I was a little too tough on them by thinking they had been there all along! 

There are much better places for us to send our money. :wink:

Sorry I interrupted and got off subject.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > You worked at the USGS, so whos side are you guys on?
> 
> 
> The taxpayer, so you better make sure your voice is heard.


You know I gave this some serious thought. I have always thought I was on the side of the taxpayer, and the hunter in particular. Giving it more though I am on the side of reality, truth, what ever you want to call it. I believe scientists who are paid by all Americans should just collect the data, interpret it correctly, and after that it's up to the taxpayers to decided what to do with it. 
I am a hunter, an outdoorsman, and a retired biologist. As a professional I have no side. As an individual I will stand with the hunters. Hunters are farmers, store owners, policemen, and all hunters are environmentalists. More environmentalist than the people in Hollywood or those who are like them.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

DG wrote:


> The carnage was pointless. No one has ever claimed that doves are overpopulated; they do not damage crops or gardens; they are not a nuisance-in fact they help control weeds by eating the seeds; and when they are hunted, the little bit of flesh they have is so riddled with shot that few hunters even try to cook and eat them. Dove hunting is not about either wildlife management or food. It is about target practice with living targets. It is killing a harmless and beloved bird for fun.


I assume those are Humane Society words, and shouldn't surprise any of us. However, if the Audubon society had _anything_ to do with that statement it should be all we need to know to never send them another dime. It clearly shows that they only consider the act of hunting acceptable if it's used as a tool to solve a problem...or more accurately stated, _something they consider_ to be a problem.



> the special place these beautiful and gentle birds hold


I enjoyed that one. It implies only dangerous, destructive, ugly or aggressive animals should be killed. I wonder if they were able to find some turkeys with a bad attitude for their Thanksgiving dinner! :lol:

I already apologized for butting in, so I'm out!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm afraid we all got off subject. Sometimes that happens by accident, sometimes it happens when people try to sideline a subject. Sorry tir, we will all try get back on track. 
It's been a while since we actually talked about what tir wanted to talk about. Lets get back to plots land as our subject.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

tlr wants a lisence fee to raise more money for plots.

HUNTNFISHND wants the no net gain law removed so the GNF can buy more land.

BigDDL wants a CRP stamp for access to posted land that his taxes are paying for.

There are federally funded steering commitees out there that want to give you everything you desire. All you have to do is put on the golden handcuffs.

Historian Sir Alex Frazer Taylor said,
"A democracy cannot exit as a permanent form of government. It can exists only until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that time on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapes over loose fiscal policy."

We all want things that are out of bounds from the The U.S. Constitution so badly we are setting ourselves up for another Fannie Mae Freddie Mac. Follow the money.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> "A democracy cannot exit as a permanent form of government. It can exists only until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.


That has always been one of my favorite quotes. It's so true, and it's where we are at now. I am afraid the majority is hooked, or we would not have Obama in office. All we can do now is damage control. If we can hold off long enough that America realizes that with socialism we all suffer maybe we can turn things around. If we get to vote again.

I noticed you said you would like to farm without government involvement. It's good to see independence still exists.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

So what is that (I) want:

Please don't speed read it. Read it caefully.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com ... ther-name/

A Socialist by Any Other Name . . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

View Comments | Print This Post |

by 
Selwyn Duke
| June 24th, 2008

Too many Americans have been instilled with unrealistic expectations for lifestyle and a spirit of entitlement, and they will glom onto any slick demagogue who promises a larger piece of the pie.

One of the consequences of being right in an age of lies is that it brands you as a radical. Remember that being an extremist doesn't mean you're wrong, but simply that your views deviate greatly from those of the mainstream. If you say that 2+2=4 in a land where everyone else insists it's 5, you'll be labeled a radical. The same is true if you assert that a certain society of men is full of wolves when everyone else believes they're sheep.

Now, for years I've been telling people that most of our Democrats are essentially socialists; sure, either they won't admit it publicly or aren't fully aware of it themselves (quite common; self knowledge is often sorely lacking, especially among leftists). It was a message as hard to relate as it is for many to accept, as it renders you something less than the kind of "credible" commentator who gets invitations to appear on Fox News (bigot Opio Sokoni was on O'Reilly last week). But that message now goes down a little easier with the recent Democrat proposal to nationalize oil refineries.

There is a great article on this very subject by a writer named Lance Fairchok; it is titled "Why Do We Call Them 'Democrats'?" After quoting a couple of Democrats who waxed enthusiastic about nationalizing the oil refineries, he presents this Freudian slip by Congressman Maxine Waters:
"This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh . . . would be about . . . basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

Well, well, I don't suppose that's the kind of rhetoric she used on the campaign trail (although I suspect most of her constituents either wouldn't know what she was talking about or wouldn't care). Don't rejoice too much at the shedding of the mask, however, as it's not so much attributable to a sudden spirit of honesty as it is to a changing climate. The truth is that no small number of American citizens are now socialists, only, they usually aren't aware of it. These are people - and we've all met them - who never heard a proposal for government involvement they didn't like. They only ask that one of two criteria be met: The proposal must sound convenient for them or inconvenient for someone who they envy. Oh, and, yes, I have always known that greed and jealousy - as opposed to some noble desire to help the downtrodden - are what drive leftists. Winston Churchill observed this decades ago when he said:

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

If you doubt both that old curmudgeon and me, a younger one, consider research related by columnist Peter Schweizer in this article. He writes,

Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour (a desire to take from those who have more) when they conducted an experiment.

Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else.

The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.

Much of the desire to distribute wealth and higher taxation is motivated by envy - the desire to take more from someone else - and bitterness.

Unfortunately, while we can give ourselves pep talks about how we value liberty and the wonders of our "free market" (if only it were freer), the truth is that socialism has swept the West. The British Chancellor of the Exchequer quipped about this over a century ago when, after introducing death duties in the budget of 1894, he said, "We are all socialists now."

As I said before, though, let's not lose sight of the fact that the politicians merely reflect the people. Too many Americans have been instilled with unrealistic expectations for lifestyle and a spirit of entitlement, and they will glom onto any slick demagogue (even if he has a strange foreign name) who promises a larger piece of the pie. As to this, in Fairchok's article he presents a chilling prediction made by U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas more than half a century ago. To wit:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.

While I can't say much for the man's politics, he was, at least insofar as this went, quite prescient. Most Americans have been inured to socialism under a different name, although virtually all would protest loudly if so accused.

People fall victim to the idea that socialism can work for a few reasons. For one thing, new generations are born and, with history taught so poorly, the mistakes of the past must be learned anew. Then, many labor under the illusion that socialism breeds prosperity in places such as Sweden, when in reality such countries are dying a lingering death.

Yet, if socialism - in any guise - is what Americans want, it's what they will get. But not only won't they know how it happened, as Thomas said, they won't like the consequences and won't know what to blame them on. Thus, they probably will fancy that the solution is even more government involvement.

Another thing that gets you branded a radical is when you point out that socialism is just a less virulent strain of communism. Yet the pseudo-intellectuals who would thus stigmatize you are blithely unaware of an important fact.

Karl Marx himself said that socialism was just a transitional phase on the road to communism.

We just have to wait for the second mask to come off.

Labels: Elections & Political Parties

Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan's magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.
[email protected]
Visit their website at: http://www.SelwynDuke.com

Read more articles by Selwyn Duke on IntellectualConservative.com

Responses to "A Socialist by Any Other Name . . ."

Good article Selwyn

As to your radicalism I give you the words of Barry Goldwater: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

John McCain take note!

Of course John will get elected and Barry did not.

Comment by Ivan Ivanovich | June 24, 2008

When the "majority wins," individuals lose. That's the problem with democracy. It's just another name for statism, when it involves taking away the right of some (the more successful) to their property in favor of giving it to others (the less successful).

Comment by AMAI | June 24, 2008

"Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else."

I would modify this statement to read: "Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if they perceived it meant taking more money from someone else."

Comment by sedonaman | June 24, 2008

I wish there were more statesman on this site. Less want!

Plainsman, On IC Blogs the part about Palin and Populism is a good read.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com ... potential/


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

Do you agree, Liberals "are" closet Socialists.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> Do you agree, Liberals "are" closet Socialists.


Not only are we off subject we have gone to politics. Take this to the political thread and I will answer it. That will let this thread stay on track, and I look forward to continuing the subject we are now on.

I think you already know what I think.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

Not trying to be a rebel but I don't want to take this to the politics forum. The veiws over there are low. I want to believe you are an ultra-conservative. And I think I know how you feel about lib's. But your name was on that fair chase initiative and so was adokken. Here is what adokken said on FBO:

Well I was not old enough to vote for FDR, But I do remember Herbert Hoover,and now you have the same party as we had that time. And you damned right I am a proud liberal.
Study history and see who done the most for America.

adokken | Dec 12, 2008 7:14PM

I wonder how many sponsers of that fair chase initiative are also proud liberals? An ultra-conservative working together with proud lib's, that had to be painful. LOL


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

DG said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> Not trying to be a rebel but I don't want to take this to the politics forum. The veiws over there are low. I want to believe you are an ultra-conservative. And I think I know how you feel about lib's. But your name was on that fair chase initiative and so was adokken. Here is what adokken said on FBO:
> 
> ...


I must be missing some hidden meanings here.....what does any of this have to do with PLOTS?As Plainsman says....take it to the politics forum or maybe we should remove any more of these "political posts"

You sure sound like Angus.....any relation? :wink:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Kenny,

I can assure that i am not angus nor related. Plainsman knows.
I was hopeing that my posts are informative and educational. Maybe I did poke some fun at some sacred cows.

The plots thread started out like this:

tlr wants a lisence fee to raise money for plots.

HUNTNFISHND wants the no net gain law removed so GNF can buy more land.

BigDDL wants a CRP stamp for access to posted CRP land that his taxes are paying for.

Well, carry on.


----------



## BigDDL (Sep 29, 2004)

actually, I've now changed my mind. I no longer want to buy a CRP stamp. Why should I pay more money for access to land that I've already paid a conservation fee for...


----------



## M*F (Nov 3, 2006)

I would like to see landowners have to purchase "No Hunting" signs from the Game and Fish. That money could be used for PLOTS.


----------

