# Battle Brewing



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Sierra Club to Influence NPHF Management Plan
Monday, June 22, 2009
NDPC Investigates by Jacqueline Dotzenrod
Issue: Property Rights

The time for giving input on whether or not more than 500,000 acres of private land should be designated as the Northern Plains National Heritage Area is past - it was a discussion in which few had a chance to take part. However, the time for giving input on the management plan is coming and the Sierra Club figures to be at the forefront.

Northern Plains Heritage Foundation (NPHF) board member Signe Snortland has been delegated the task of organizing public input on the management plan. Snortland, former state archeologist and current employee of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, was recruited to the board.

"I was working with the Sierra Club on a similar idea (to the NHA designation) to try and I got a call that there was already a board in existence and they had identified me as a potential member," Snortland said. "We were looking to see if there would be a way to identify cultural resources along the Missouri River to work with landowners to protect them (the cultural resources)."

However, much more than a mere study has taken place. In March, President Barack Obama signed into law H.R. 146 - which contains the legislation creating the Northern Plains Heritage Area. Currently, the area includes the entirety of Burleigh, Oliver, McLean, Mercer and Morton Counties. With the designation the NPHF board has the authority to write a management plan for the area which includes recommending "policies and strategies for resource management including the development of intergovernmental and interagency agreements to protect, enhance, interpret, fund, manage, and develop the natural, historical, cultural, educational, scenic, and recreational resources of the Heritage Area."

While the NPHF board cannot directly change land use policies, there is potential to sway local governing authorities with its recommendations. The NPHF board will also have up to $1 million each year at its disposal to carry out the goals set forth in the management plan. A lot of entities will be seeking a piece of the pie, including a group hostile to property rights, the Sierra Club.

Legislation signed by President Obama does not prohibit the NPHF from granting money to groups like the Sierra Club. According to the Sierra Club's website, the group is working to achieve four primary outcomes in their Resilient Habitats initiative:

Plan an interconnected continental network of large, protected areas and corridors to serve as "climate adaptation refuges" to ensure optimal survival of species and habitats at risk due to climate change.

Help establish five to seven major ecosystem resiliency reserves.

Limit or eliminate non-climate stresses including habitat fragmentation, over-harvesting, invasive species, and disruptive human activities like oil drilling, logging and pollution.

Where necessary, help species adapt by reintroducing native species, assisting in migration, controlling pests or disease outbreaks, or other tactics.

As part of its global warming campaign, the Sierra Club's Climate Crossroads initiative has a land use section that insists on the following items:

Wilderness areas will require special preservation and protection efforts from invasive plant and animal species, along with prescribed burning of the wilderness floor to prevent catastrophic infernos

Pernicious human activity, such as logging, mining, and off-road vehicles, will need to be phased out

Soil regeneration and soil erosion prevention, as well as wetland restoration and healthy forest preservation, should be viewed as a way to help remove human-generated carbon from the atmosphere

All federal and state land management agencies should draft climate adaptation plans to protect native plants and wildlife under their jurisdiction. These agencies, in partnership with the Sierra Club and the National Academy of Sciences, should monitor improvements and setbacks as mitigation measures are implemented

The North Star Chapter of the Sierra Club published a widely distributed guide to influencing land use policies, entitled A Citizen's Guide to Influencing Local Land Use Decisions.

The Sierra Club will be influencing land use policy decisions at the local government level, possibly with federal money received from the NPHF.

Jacqueline Dotzenrod is an investigative reporter for the NDPC. She can be reached at (701)640-9847 or [email protected].


----------



## ztrain (Jul 26, 2006)

A few years ago North Idaho started to phase out snowmobiling in some parts. Phasing out human activity only causes problems because meth labs move in causing polution and poaching. Many people refuse to believe that those who follow the law are the police because we will report crimes. With out our eyes criminal activities increase.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This could have a very bad influence on agriculture. It could get to the point of influencing land use practices. For example you may be able to farm whatever you want, but there would be no ag support on some soil types etc. They will most likely not tell you that you can't do something. Now that landowners are hooked on federal support they will just see to it that the support is only given for the land use practices that they approve of. 
However, this area is mostly posted or pay to play so remind me again why I should care. I think I have tried to get the idea across before that landowners and hunters need each other, but most landowners who post on here disagree. So what do I do? Seriously, do I support landowners, or do I get out the pop corn, set back, and watch them go bankrupt with all the regulations? 
So DG you posted this for? Which side should I support, and why? Maybe they will push good habitat programs. Maybe they will use hunting as a management tool. Maybe a landowner will call a hunter in Fargo and ask him to come out for a week-end hunt.  Maybe he!! will freeze over.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

There are quite a number of things this could potentially have an effect on besides agriculture. The gov't agency in charge of the Heritage Areas is the National Park Service, with input from the Sierra Club. Stop and think of the restrictions and mentality behind those in this agency and org. and ask yourself what else eventually maybe regulated to it's end? The nine member board that currently makes up the committee pursueing this agenda that affects a tremendous amount of agricultural lands is almost all comprised of people from the metro areas of Bismarck/Mandan, I believe only one member from outside this area and no representation of ag that I'm aware of. Anyone have any ideas why???

Plainsman, maybe one of these Fargo hunters you talk of will stop out this time of year and see if any of these ranchers need help for a weekend replacing the miles of fence that got tore out during the flooding, There were quite a few rural kids and folks that made the trip to Fargo this spring to help in the sandbagging effort that "saved" Fargo. Or maybe as you said he!! will freeze over. So if you want, get out your popcorn sit back and watch as even more land becomes closed because of comments like this. For everyone b!tching about posted land on this site, why don't you contact the G&F and ask them what their estimate of the percentage of private land that remains open to public hunting is here in ND. It might just surprise you. Better yet, politely ask this landowner why it is posted, you might hear a reason that you yourself might post something if you where in their position.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, don't loose faith that I will support agriculture. However, it's a two way street. Many landowners on here want it to be a one way street. I just poke them once in a while to keep them thinking.  I see it irritated you, but if you can get over that part of it please give it some thought.
Sure someone should stop and help. I do. I am old and not in that good a shape, but I can still drive a tractor or a truck. I'm not much help during harvest as the grain dust puts me right to my knees. I can summer fallow, haul hay, cultivate, plant, etc, but keep me away from the dust. Especially barley.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for a place to hunt. I have at least 50,000 acres of private land I can hunt. I have a cousin with 22 sections. Mostly I help these guys with cattle. I always get stuck with vaccinating. Or taking my 4X4 out about Mothers Day to chase cattle to the away from home pastures. 
I am aware that the Sierra Club could be trouble for hunters too. When they pushed for changing the government control in the Badlands I had to speak for them because I didn't trust the ranchers not to try stop public hunting. Often they want to close hunting due to fire hazards. That worked a couple of years, then they wanted to do it most years. I would not have been this untrusting if four guys on horseback rounding up their cattle had not stopped in our camp, pulled out a petition and nearly demanded that we sign it. They said if we didn't they would see we wouldn't hunt there anymore. That just pushed me the wrong direction.

I know that was a smart *** remark I made. I hope it got attention. Once your over the irritation I hope it leads to some thought. I may have said it, but you know many out there are thinking to themselves "what's in it for me", but they will kiss up to you and stab you in the back. I work the other way around. I may tick you off, but it doesn't mean I will not help.



> Better yet, politely ask this landowner why it is posted, you might hear a reason that you yourself might post something if you where in their position.


I have no doubt your right.

I just hope the whole thing between landowners and hunters doesn't blow up. We do owe each other. We owe landowners for their hospitality. We owe farmers around the world for our food. Landowners owe us for support both politically and monetarily. Agriculture tax payer support is nearly essential these days. It shouldn't be, but I think our politicians did it that way by design. It gives them control over farmers. AS a matter of fact as a society we are all interconnected an owe each other. I myself do, but today not many want to admit it. They foolishly think they are independent. Were all in the same boat so it's best no one chops holes in the floor.

Oh, by the way gst. I hope that remark didn't offend you to much. It was meant to make a point with the people I debated in the past who could think of nothing but landowner rights. The reason we need to stick together is your landowner rights are only the rights that the majority of America is willing to let you have. It could disappear as quickly as America started. As a matter of fact I fear you fellows are in for a hard time in the next few years.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman Most comments on here that aren't the personal BS some choose to engage in don't tend to irritate or offend me. Your comment of it being a two way street is correct. For every landower on here that wants it to be a one way street, there is a dozen sportsmen with the same mentality. Given it is a "sportsmen" wesite I can understand the higher percentage. But I can assure you there are many farmers and ranchers that read these comments without replying. So is it a chicken and the egg thing as to what comes first here sportsmen stepping up or landowners opening up??? There are two websites here in ND that I'm aware of that are ran by "sportsmen" for "sportsmen". and on many different topics and forums and occassions there have been a fair number of these "sportsmen" ragging on farmers, ranchers, and landowners. Please find me a web site ran by farmers and ranchers where this happens. So maybe one of the first steps is for people on these sites who are concerned as to what is happening to step up and say enough when this occurs, and to stop and think how policy or legislation is going to affect these folks that own the land that you may want to hunt on.

I know there are tons of great sportsmen out there, but slowly and surely about the same pace as more land is being closed, there are more and more "sportsmen" that care only about their own "quality hunting experience" and are willing to go to any length and support any agenda to accomplish it. Some on here can't seem to see the connection.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I still fail to see where taking it out on hunters benefits anyone. My relatives are not happy about sodbuster, some of du's acts, and flood restrictions but they don't block access because of it. They go to their boards and elected officials. Isn't that what they are there for? If legislation fails the first place to look is the legislators who are sponsoring the bills, they are not selling it.

With the exception of upland, hunting in general is down. One of the main reasons is land access. Everytime a hunter hangs up his guns the outdoors and ag communities loose an ally.

The sierra club is bad news. They may bring more hunting and fishing habitat but they are anti-oil, anti-coal, and more than likely anti-grazing and against some spraying and fertilizing practices. Their views are not good for our states' surplus to say the least. They are cap and traders. I am not real sure why they are here, their website kind of links them to more urban projects and urban restorization. Their website is also very obscure on their views of agriculture but if you see their views on water it would stand to reason they are thinking more on the organic farming lines.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK Many of us in agriculture understand the diminishing numbers of people that are involved in our industries and the problems that presents when gaining representation. But let me take just one issue and see if you and everyone else can put yourselves in a ranchers shoes for a moment.

For a number of years ranchers have watched as more and more restrictions and regulations have been placed on the parameters of the allowance for haying or grazing of CRP. These are privately owned lands under contract that because of lobbying and lawsuits, wildlife orgs. have gotten the regulations governing them changed to fit their agendas better over the years. When CRP first came out, in times of natural disasters, it was fairly easy to be allowed to hay or graze a portion of these acres. Ranchers got much needed hay, while acres, at least 50% were left for wildlife. Both sides benefited. Over the years this has changed. Last year, when many ranchers were being faced with liquidating herds even further than what had been done after 4 years of drought the previous years, and the Govenor declared a disaster that would have allowed this limited haying and grazing (less than 50 % of a contract, and about 30% of total CRP acres) a sportsmen/wildlife org., NWF, filed a lawsuit blocking this from happening.

Now as I have said we have watched this happen over a number of years, and we have contacted our boards and legislators and representatives in an attempt to address this to no availe. While we have been doing this the NWF was filing lawsuits that were getting the parameters of the CRP program changed to fit their agenda in regards to the managed haying and grazing of CRP from once every 3 years to once every 5 and in some cases 1 in 10 years. Bit by bit this org. as well as DU, Delta, and PF have used any and all means to place more and more restrictions on these contracts involving private lands to get their agendas across.

Now for a minute put yourself in the shoes of many of these ranchers. When faced with the probability of having to sell what you have worked a lifetime to build because of a lawsuit that this wildlife/ sportsmen group filed to prevent you from doing what was always allowed in the past for a disaster situation how would you feel? What would you do when these very same "sportsmen" wanted to come out and hunt this CRP in the fall? How many of these "sportsmen" or affiliate groups of the NWF spoke up on behalf of the rancher at the testimony of this lawsuit? How many called in on the Joel Hietkamp or Ed Shultz show in favor of allowing these ranchers to hay this CRP during this severe drought? The answer, almost none. There was by far many more complaining about these acres being lost to wildlife and how it would affect their hunting opportunities. Now if YOU were this rancher, how would YOU respond???? Last summer was a perfect opportunity for sportsmen to step up and be a part of this 2 way street, and very few if any did. So I ask, after years of contacting our boards and representatives and legislators and having this type of outcome what WOULD you do if the roles were reversed??? As you watched the trailer leave your yard with your cattle to be sold, what kind of taste would you have in your mouth for these "sportsmen/wildlife" groups that are only concerned about their recreational hunting opportunities??? Most ranchers ended up extremely frustrated.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

There are several power plants and coal mines within the NPHF boundary. How will this designation effect them? Several thousand people are currently in the employ of this industry from here to Chicago. A large percentage of the workers in this industry are hunters. I wonder if the residents of Chicago, who voted for Obama, know their natural gas comes from a pipeline north of Beulah N.D.

Did you catch the part about Signe Snortland:

(qoute)Northern Plains Heritage Foundation (NPHF) board member Signe Snortland has been delegated the task of organizing public input on the management plan. Snortland, former state archeologist and current employee of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, was recruited to the board.

So lets understand this. By day, Signe works for the taxpayers compiling data. Then on weekends or evenings works for the Sierra Club and NPHF.

Plainsman, When you worked at USGS and USFWS, did you ever witness this kind of thing? Where federal employees are joining environmental and animal right causes and just handing over the information? By the time these kind of things come out in the newspapers the opposition has a two mile head start.

btw Jiggs retired in May.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

I would like to expand on GST post.

It was reported in Dakota Country magazine Jan. 05 that the national wildlife federation and its affiliates filed a federal lawsuit against the Farm Service Agency for mismangement of CRP. Legal action was being taken in Indiana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas. The article said in 2002, a team of experts-grassland ecologists-told Congress as much saying that grazing shouldn't be allowed on the prairie of the interior west and that regular haying shouldn't be allowed on CRP lands anywhere.

Theirs everyones tax dollars at work. The federally subsidized NWF sued the taxpayer funded FSA.

Last year the NWF was again able to keep ranchers out until Aug. 1st But they new it was going to get to hot for their affiliates, so they took the brunt alone. The north dakota wildlife federation and its affiliates Stutsmans and Barnes County federations said we didn't do it. NWF did it. What the ranchers or anyone couldn't know is two board members for NDWF and the president of the Stutsmans County chapter were federal employees who are quite up to speed on these issues. It's unfortunate if some landowners posted and all sportsmen paid for that.

Plainsman,
You keep saying that landowners need sportsmen and vice versa. All sides must come together. No.(1) the sportsmen No.(2) the landowners No. (3) I suppose Dick would want the NWF included No. (4) Might as well throw in the wildlife society.

What you would have is two sheep and two wolves sitting at the table discussing what they are going to have for dinner.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> btw Jiggs retired in May


I figured out who that was by one of the comments he made. Something like you old coot or something, I don't remember. I do remember him always saying it to me years ago. Say hello if you see him again.

Edit:


> Plainsman, When you worked at USGS and USFWS, did you ever witness this kind of thing?


No, but I have seen data given out when someone filed through the freedom of information act. Sometimes there is no choice, but it makes no difference who files under the freedom of information. You have that same avenue available to you.


----------



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

This is beyond a slippery slope. Allowing any non-governmental organization the ability to influence policy and local land use decisions is an absolute disaster that will have numerous unintended consequences.

In Wyoming, the Audubon Society successfully implemented the 'core population area' concept via a greater sage-grouse working group (http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/wildlife ... /index.asp). The core area concept was subsequently issued by proclamation of Governor Freudenthal via Executive Order (EO) in 2008. It was an extremely bad policy that was not fully vetted. More importantly, the EO was supposed to recognize existing rights and to have state agencies work colloboratively with private landowners.

Unfortunately, existing rights of private landowners have now been substantially modified. Case in point wind energy development. The resulting article shows the level of influence these types of policies can reach to the private landowner. I would guess that the Anschutz project will file a private land taking lawsuit, because the private land is now precluded from development.

The moral of the story, these NGO's are nobody's friends. Some have radical agendas and they don't act in the best interest of private landowners.

State: No turbines in grouse areas

By DUSTIN BLEIZEFFER
Star-Tribune energy reporter
Wednesday, July 1, 2009 10:07 PM MDT

State officials recently reached a decision not to allow wind development -- or even a pilot study -- in Wyoming's sage grouse core areas.

It's a potentially huge blow to several wind development projects, including Horizon Wind Energy's Simpson Ridge project and Power Company of Wyoming's Sierra Madre and Chokecherry wind projects -- all in Carbon County.

Gov. Dave Freudenthal issued the core areas sage grouse management plan by executive order in August 2008, mapping out the state's best sage grouse habitat and listing a number of requirements that severely restrict new development within the areas.

The plan is hailed by some as a leading strategy to avoid listing the sage grouse under the Endangered Species Act. However, the collaborative effort among agriculture, industry, and state and federal agencies to design the core areas plan did not include consideration for wind energy development.

"The core areas came out of nowhere for us," said Nate Sandvig, project manager for Horizon Wind Energy. "So here we were in a sage grouse core area. Wind was never invited to the table. We weren't represented. We weren't there."

Ryan Lance, Freudenthal's deputy chief of staff, said the governor's office asked the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its opinion on whether a wind farm would have an impact inside a sage grouse core area.

"In our initial discussions, we've heard that no, wind is not compatible, as currently configured, with the core areas approach," Lance said Wednesday.

Further, Lance said it doesn't seem likely that the state will allow a proposal by Horizon and others in the industry to build a pilot wind farm in a core area in order to get scientific data to better understand the impacts to sage grouse.

Lance said the industry might obtain that scientific data outside the core areas.

"We left a lot of good habitat outside the core areas, so we'd argue that, generally, we think we can do good research outside of the core areas," Lance said.

Both the governor's office and officials from the Fish and Wildlife Service reiterated that the state is not taking direction from the federal government on this matter.

Sandvig said there isn't enough scientific data to say what the impacts of wind development are on sage grouse. He said Horizon is part of a collaborative effort in Kansas that might shed some light on the impacts. But what's really needed is a study in one of Wyoming's core areas.

If that type of data can be obtained, wind developers may be able to design a mitigation plan that would meet Wyoming's core areas stipulations, he said.

"We feel you need to build it in a core area and study the impact and see if there is no response or an impact," Sandvig said. "If there is an impact, we can mitigate it."

Sandvig said Horizon still plans to submit an application to the Wyoming Industrial Siting Council for the Simpson Ridge Wind Farm project. Although the project falls mostly on private land, the Industrial Siting Council is one place where the state can enforce its sage grouse core areas stipulations.

Sandvig said the core areas decision, combined with a proposed repeal of Wyoming's sales tax exemption for commercial-scale wind facilities, sends a signal to the industry that Wyoming isn't interested in developing wind energy.

Further, Sandvig said that blocking some of Wyoming's best wind resources based on sage grouse habitat fragmentation and other possible on-site impacts is short-sighted and quite insignificant when considering the impacts that sage grouse already experience from climate change.

"I think climate change, if you take a larger view of the climate and how that's impacting sage grouse -- fires and West Nile disease -- is already having an impact on sage grouse," Sandvig said. "I spent a tour in Iraq, and I'd much rather be here trying to get energy."

In fact, many of Wyoming's landowners who have implemented good stewardship in order to maintain good sage grouse habitat are actually being punished by the state's core areas plan, because now they cannot make money from wind development, Sandvig said.

"They're being punished for having improved habitat for sage grouse," he said..

Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 577-6069 or {[email protected] Check out Dustin's blog at tribtown.trib.com/DustinBleizeffer/blog.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

gst's post above is skewed a bit. A CRP contract is a binding rental agreement between the landowner and the tenant (USDA). It is not a contract between the owner, the tenant, and people who want cheap hay. 
Since CRP started in '86 how many years has there not been a "drought emergency"? Which leads to a second question, what would these folks do without a CRP program? Plant their own hay?

It seems some folks hate the Federal CRP...until they need the hay. 

From inception some have instead viewed CRP as a forage reserve for livestock operations, rather than the original intent of taking fragile soils out of grain production. Because they don't have to plant hay on their own land when they can get it cheaper from CRP. Prior to CRP alfalfa was a common crop. Count the fields you see today. Just about zip.

Over lay the old soil bank state maps on the CRP maps and you will see convergence. Uncle Sam bought it twice. Such a deal. And he will again, because as the CRP contracts expire, many are going back into grain production, not grass land. Imagine that, stewardship of fragile soils in action.

On the Joel Heitkamp radio show the spokesman for the ND Stockmen's Association made a specific point that the North Dakota Wildlife Federation was not a party to the lawsuit. Kind blows that argument out of the water. The specific recommendation from NDWF was that limited forage removal was beneficial to CRP goals. But truth never stops the critics.

About 10 years ago the maligned NDWF sponsored operation Hayride for forage strapped farmers in western ND. NDWF raised apx $40,000 and distributed it equally to all applicants to pay for transporting hay. Out of the hundreds who asked for and received a check there were 3 thank yous. The sportsmen sure kicked in money and effort. And now they are again disparaged by the same people. Not really a surprise though.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> About 10 years ago the maligned NDWF sponsored operation Hayride for forage strapped farmers in western ND. NDWF raised apx $40,000 and distributed it equally to all applicants to pay for transporting hay.


I remember that now. I hauled a few bales myself. One guy donated a low boy trailer, another a pickup, and I donated three days time. I guess more was done than that $40,000 that was kept track of.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

gst- 
What I would do is what I said above. There are lots of ag groups and the governor and the AG. Go through them, the elected officials. if you don't like what the groups that represent ag are doing vote them out. What I would not do is drive away fellow residents and taxpayers, or nonresidents by posting more land. I wonder how the people who own businesses in the rural areas feel when less hunters show up in the fall and their numbers go down?

I know some people who have to get out of farming/ranching or have lost most of their operation and it is not a fun thing to watch so I am sure it is a terrible thing to go through. I don't think that hunting should come before agriculture but posting up land is not the answer, if anything it could be an antagonizer. Why alienate people who support you in many ways?

Back on track, that was a great post bioman. That is the one thing that I fear with the sierra club "the unknown". A lot of sites have called them very left. The energy industry is huge here in ND just like Wyoming and there are a lot of similarities. It would be a shame to see it heavily restricted like it has in other places. Like I said above adios surplus.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dicks post above is skewed a bit. If I'm not mistaken, in ND CRP has only been opened up statewide under a disaster declaration a handful of times. We have only hayed CRP 4 times in the past. We like most other ranchers have land for forage production of one sort or another. In our case we have about 400 acres in the alfalfa you say is about nonexistant, and a couple hundred more in planted forages. Alfalfa has become limited in production not because of CRP but of economics of cost of production as a feed source.

Find where I have stated the NDWF was a part of this lawsuit. While they were'nt, they never publically came out against it either until after the fact, even though they knew it was going to happen. Can you share any documents that were sent to your national org in opposition of this? I believe you are a member of the NDWF but from your comments it appears that you don't support haying or grazing of CRP under disaster situations??? In regards to soil bank and CRP, there was a time frame after soil bank where there were no programs to idle most of these lands so when they were put into CRP it was indeed an example of " stewardship of fragile soils in action" by these producers. And many acres were not allowed to be enrolled into CRP unless they had been in production for 3 of the last 5 years.

Your statement that there were 3 thank yous is simply wrong. Perhaps to you personally, but many ranchers and ag orgs. made public thank yous. So are you saying something done 10 years ago is more than enough for all sportsmen to have access to private lands?? Maybe something of this nature last summer would have shown a willingness to do something more than what the national org you are affiliated with did and offset some of the perceptions. Do you think something like this would even be possible today?? If so, the NDSA has setup a program where donations can be made to help offset the costs of replacing fence that was destroyed during the flooding this spring. How about stepping up and taking a walk down this side of the 2 way street?

So Dick are you actually trying to say NWF, PF, DU, and Delta are not actively trying to change the parameters of CRP to benefit their agenda at the cost of the landowner that entered this private land into this contract? Your quote "A CRP contract is a binding rental agreement between the landowner and the tennant(USDA)" is correct!!! It is not a contract between the owner, the tenant, and these wildlife orgs. that want it used for wildlife habitat and production!!!!!!!!! Any more so than those "people wanting cheap hay". And it was the tennant, the USDA, that allowed the haying and grazing of CRP under this binding contract, that was and is being sued by the NWF to disallow this practice.

Why are some of these CRP acres coming out and being put back into production? For starters farming practices have changed so these soils are not "at risk" while in production. In some cases economics allows it, but for many the CRP program has evolved into something that has much less benefit to the producer than what the original programs did. These wildlife orgs have been so focased on changing and restricting the ability of the landowner to use his own land in the manner that was allowed at the beginning of this program, that many producers simply don't want to be involved anymore. So now a program that benefited both producer and wildlife is at risk of being severely reduced unless many more dollars are thrown at it. Even then with the demand for public access some are calling for enrollment maybe limited. So the simple fact is these wildlife orgs are as much responsible for the reduction in CRP acres as are the producers.

TK, what you are suggesting has been done time and time again. Many of the "elected officials" understand the need and have been supportive, but the wildlife orgs have learned the judicial approach(lawsuits) over rides all else on these issues and allows their agendas to be accomplished by swaying one judge. The spotted owl, CRP, delisting the wolf, ect..... And as a result you have what is happening now. Until the membership of these orgs steps up and says no to policies that are negatively affecting the people that own the land they want to hunt on, these policies will continue. So if you have any suggestions as to how to accomplish this outside of contacting your legs. and orgs., please share them.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

(quote)About 10 years ago the maligned NDWF sponsored operation Hayride for forage strapped farmers in western ND. NDWF raised apx $40,000 and distributed it equally to all applicants to pay for transporting hay. Out of the hundreds who asked for and received a check there were 3 thank yous. The sportsmen sure kicked in money and effort. And now they are again disparaged by the same people. Not really a surprise though

A fellow by the name of Bob Schible collected the $40,000 from some N.D. Corporations. What are the names of those corporations? Shouldn't they get the credit? If someone had given the womens auxiliary 40,000 bucks they could have sponsored the hayride too. Where NDWF is concerned it's always about the mileage.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bob Schible, who has passed, was a director of NDWF when he chaired the Hayride fund drive. He did ask for & recieve funds from North Dakota businesses for this effort. Also from local wildlife clubs and any individuals who were willing. The point being that no other organization lifted a finger except the ND Wildlife Federation.

Anyone could have done it,...the NDWF did.

gst, you do remeber when Wade Moser, spokesman for the ND Stockman's Association, made the public statement on Heitkamp's radio show....that the ND Wildlife Federation was not a party to the CRP lawsuit? He is still kicking so you can ask him directly, and that way the proof will come from your organization. When the bashers were calling in that day Wade stepped up honestly and quelled that line of talk right there. Joel Heitkamp backpedaled right now. Done deal.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> *gst said:* Dicks post above is skewed a bit. If I'm not mistaken, in ND CRP has only been opened up statewide under a disaster declaration a handful of times.


Gabe, I didn't say statewide. Easy error to make, no need to appologize.

Googled "CRP Haying History, North Dakota" :wink:

Search Results 1988 Aug 5, 1988 - Ordinarily, farmers who cut their CRP acreage and feed or sell the hay are required to have their next year's rental payments reduced by 25 percent. ... Officials have said North Dakota is the state worst hit by the drought. And the latest report, issued by the North Dakota State ... 
From FARMERS FIND LOOPHOLE IN CRP HAYING RULE - Related web pages
docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/GF/lib00128 ...

1989 Jun 28, 1989 - Walsh County is one of the few counties in eastern North Dakota opened for CRP haying. ASCS county director Bonita Hayes said there's quite a ... So far, 2.6 million acres in North Dakota have been enrolled in CRP, and 38 counties have been approved, for CRP haying, according to ASCS ... 
From DORGAN TO MEET WITH YEUTTER TODAY IN CRP HAY ISSUE - Related web pages
docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/GF/lib00128 ...

1990 Jul 6, 1990 - So far, nine counties in North Dakota -- Walsh, Stutsman, Adams, Bowman, Billings, Golden Valley, Stark, Grant and Sioux -- have requested the new CRP haying and grazing provision. Bob Muellenbach of the state ASCS office said Thursday. None have yet been approved. ... 
From USDA OPENS UP CRP LAND FOR HAYING, GRAZING - Related web pages
docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/GF/lib00128 ...

1993 Jul 20, 1993 - "The quality of the first crop was very poor, that's the reason farmers are asking for both the CRP and the set aside released. The set aside won't be high quality hay, certainly, but it's better than nothing at all." No North Dakota Counties have filed applications state ASCS office ... 
From &#8230; Deny Minnesota Request To Open CRP Land To Haying, Grazing. (Originated from &#8230; - Related web pages
www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286 ...

1996 Jul 6, 1996 - North Dakota's state Farm Service Agency committee initially recommended July 15 for opening CRP acres in the state to haying, during a time of cool, wet weather, Johnson said. But the committee and farm groups now want an earlier date, he said, and the governor's support is important ... 
From AG CANDIDATES CLASH OVER CRP HAYING ACRES - Related web pages
docs.newsbank.com/g/GooglePM/GF/lib00128 ...

1997 Jul 6, 1997 - that make emergency haying more than an annual fight. Johnson and North Dakota Game and Fish Commissioner Dean Hildebrand are two of ... North Dakota is No.1 among the states in CRP -- the largest, most long-term. conservation program in the nation's history. ... 
From Archive/purchases | INFORUM | Fargo, North Dakota - Moorhead, Minnesota - Related web pages
www.in-forum.com/archive/purchases/?page=view ...

2002 Jul 16, 2002 - "Southern Grant County is the desert of North Dakota," Ken says, giving a windshield tour of the ranch, seven miles west of the burned-out prairie village of ... The Kochs still are hoping to get CRP hay. Much of the CRP is full of "sticks" from old crops and has little green in it. ... 
From North Dakota Farmers Struggle through Year of Drought, Floods. - Related web pages
www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286 ...

2004 Sep 29, 2004 - South Dakota hunters are being asked to assist in the search for an elderly North Dakota couple who were reported missing from their Hettinger, ... "In 2004 some parts of western South Dakota were open to emergency haying and grazing on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land, ... 
From *Map Errors In Hunting Handbook - Related web pages
www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1971&dept_id ...

2006 Jul 24, 2006 - ... --Emergency use of Conservation Reserve Program: In North Dakota, farmers in 16 approved counties can apply to hay or graze CRP acres in other counties anywhere in the state. The first counties -- Emmons and Grant -- were approved June 29. Initially, they would have been able to hay ... 
From Feds offer CRP hay, other drought aid. - Related web pages
www.accessmylibrary.com/premium/0286/0286 ...

2008 May 28, 2008 - "A lot of people are moving hay acres into commodity crops," said Schafer, a former North Dakota governor. ... Kevin Kading, private lands coordinator for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, said disturbing CRP land will have an impact on wildlife, which has flourished under the ... 
From Feds Open Grasslands for Haying and Grazing - Related web pages
abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=4947213


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, your post refers to 8 times out of 23 years a handful of counties, a very small percentage of total CRP acres, may have been opened up under disaster related reasons in ND, all under USDA approval as the "tenant" in this "binding contract". Not too much more than a "handful of times" not bad for going by memory for 23 years!! I guess maybe I should have "googled". So what's your point??? Is this something you personally don't agree with? Do you have the same veiws as the NWF on this issue?? It seems to have caused a burr under your saddle?

Dick I've had many opportunities to have conversations with Wade about many issues and this one in particular. Both of us know that the NDWF was not listed on the lawsuit. And I have never claimed they were, so I don't know where you want to go with this. However as I stated, they said nothing in opposition to this lawsuit even though they knew it was happening until after the fact. It wasn't until after they began being "maligned" and realized how bad a hit they were taking that anything was said on this issue. And if I'm not mistaken NDWF is still affiliated with the NWF. Are you working to change your national affiliates policy in regards to the use of lawsuits to acheive their agendas that negatively affect many of the people that own the land ND sportsmen hunt or their agendas themselves you claim not to support???

In regards to the people calling into the Hietkamp and Shultz show by far the majority were complaining how haying CRP would damage their hunting opportunities that fall. Hands down. Did you or anyone else involved with the NDWF call in and say your org. supported the haying and grazing and that sportsmen should perhaps look at the big picture in regards to this issue??? Perhaps if they would have these people calling in mistaking the NDWF with the NWF would have understood the difference between the two if there actually is one. As an affiliate if you do not come out in opposition to policy, you are by default supporting it.

So if you would, explain how this 2 way street deal works? I guess you assume some hay ten years ago covers these kind of policies today? At least answer the questions I've posed to you in the last couple of posts.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, it's still kinda skewed. After looking closer at the examples of CRP being opend "facts" you had in your last post, about half don't even document the opening of CRP in ND. You sure do like to throw stuff out there and kinda skirt around the "facts"! :wink: 
Now I do know CRP has been opened to disaster haying and grazing more than the 4 or 5 times your "facts" actually refer to but I'll admit I'm not positive exactly how many, maybe a "handful"!!! ??


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Gabe, I have to admire your persistance. How's this for facts?

------ Forwarded message follows ------- 
Subject: FW: CRP haying 
Date sent: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:02:25 -0600 
From: "Olson, Bradley - Fargo, ND" <[email protected]> 
To: <[email protected]> 
Copies to: "Ihry, Dale - Fargo, ND" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>

Andy,

Here is the answer to the CRP haying question.

Brad

________________________________

From: Jost, Jim - Fargo, ND 
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:37 AM 
To: Olson, Bradley - Fargo, ND 
Subject: CRP haying

*Emergency haying of CRP has been authorized in North Dakota beginning in 1988. Authorization was normally given by county. There has been emergency haying in a North Dakota county every year since 1988 with the exception of 1991 and 2001. *

Jim Jost 
FSA Farm Program Specialist 
North Dakota State FSA Office 
701-893-2214

------- End of forwarded message -------

We have now established the years of occurance. (math isn't my strong suit--is that 14 out of 16 years?) I leave it up to someone else to count the countys, townships, or 40 acre units that were hayed.
DG, I owe you an appology for hijacking your topic. Have a good day all.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

No problem. I've been known to hi-jack a few myself.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Quote "Math isn't my strong suit" If CRP started in 86 like you said earlier it is actually 18 out of 23 years, which I have to admit is more than a "handful"!! Like I said Dick, I was sure that CRP had been opened for emergency haying and grazing more than the 4 or 5 times you had listed and admitted that I didn't know how many. You did what I was thinking probably should have been done, but with haying our alfalfa, I just didn't take the time. Now we both know directly from the head of the state FSA. So apparently the USDA(the tennant), 18 out of 23 years, did not have a problem with opening CRP within the boundries of this "binding contract". So now that this part of the discussion is settled factually, who is the NWF to interfer with a contract they are not a part of when this has a significant history of being allowed??? Dick you throw a lot of comments out there, but you have yet to answer any questions. So having come to an agreement on the numbers of times CRP has been opened, maybe you can have a go at addressing some that were asked in the previous posts.

For some reason I didn't think DG would mind this conversation taking place!!!


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

It appears once again Dick is willing to make several comments on an issue, but is unwilling to answer any questions when asked. It is tough to have a discussion or debate on an issue or put much credibility behind what one says when they choose not to answer questions.

The "technicality" the NWF used to successfully stop the emergency haying and grazing of CRP last year, is exactly the problem some groups and communities within the boundries of this Heritage Area have with what is happening. The lack of scheduling of public input meetings and the feasibility study on impact to the area that was called for prior to implementation was not completed or followed. It simply became law. Where is the lawsuit by the NWF saying the proper procedure to determine impact or allow public input wasn't followed here? I guess when something fits their agenda they are willing to overlook these "technicallities". If people don't think the federal monies allocated to this project will be used to influence land usage they are naive, And when you get groups like the Sierra Club involved through having it's members on the board that controls the management plan of these areas and money allocation, it may very well have a negative impact on more than just the people living in this area.


----------

