# Hunters could feel chill this fall



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Hunters could feel chill this fall

LOADING 
Sep 07, 2008 - 04:05:23 CDT

Bismarck Tribune

(This is the first in a two-part series on the Conservation Reserve Program. Today's story looks at the issue of releasing CRP acres for haying. Monday's story looks at why farmers and ranchers are leaving the program.)

By LAUREN DONOVAN

RURAL TAYLOR - Marc Fridley rolled up hay the texture of stale shredded breakfast cereal.

Dry and crunchy, baled in the high heat of mid-August, it'll take the edge off his cows' appetite when it gets cold outside. It won't offer much nutrition. The bloom is long off the alfalfa by now.

Fridley wishes he hadn't had to wait until August to make 500 or so hay bales on Conservation Reserve Program acres, belonging to a landowner on the south side of the Heart River. He's grateful to get it, don't get him wrong. But he's frustrated that the government opened up emergency haying Aug. 2, weeks after prime hay time, which ideally starts back in June.

Fridley said he'll be thinking of that dried-up hay when hunters come to his rural Taylor farm this fall. A lawsuit filed by the National Wildlife Federation prevented the USDA from opening up millions of CRP acres for haying in a proposed critical use program to help livestock producers deal with the drought and high feed costs.

"Anybody who shows up from those hunting organizations that supported this lawsuit, I'll turn them down," he said.

Fridley said he's already sold off 50 cow-calf pairs and hopes he can scrounge up enough feed to keep his remaining 250 cows through the winter.

The North Dakota chapter of the National Wildlife Federation did not join the lawsuit, which argued that the USDA needed an environmental assessment before making such a sweeping change to reserve acres and wildlife habitat.

The USDA wanted to let landowners apply for critical need use, rather than limit haying to acres already in a hay management program.

A separate lawsuit by the National Wildlife Federation in 2006 resulted in more restrictive rules for CRP hay management. Now, on new contracts, hay can only be cut once every 10 years, rather than every three years.

Even without the latest lawsuit, it's not likely North Dakota would have been opened for haying any earlier.

Jay Hochhalter is the CRP specialist for USDA's Fargo statewide office.

He said about half of the county Farm Service Agency committees requested that the USDA open haying earlier than Aug. 2 in North Dakota.

But that date is considered the end of the primary nesting season for game birds.

It's a long-established date set by the state office, which partners on that issue with a number of agencies and groups, including North Dakota Game and Fish Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and others.

Hochhalter said CRP hay - like any hay - does lose quality after July 1.

The intent of the program is to conserve land, protect water quality and thus provide habitat for wildlife.

"This is not a hay-management program," Hochhalter said. "The terms (for haying) are set out, and if people want to use it, fine; if not, that's their decision. Those partners have looked favorably on emergency haying and hopefully people understand that the North Dakota chapter was not in favor of the lawsuit."

Jay Elkin farms north of Taylor and serves on the statewide FSA committee.

It's his impression that despite many requests made to and by county FSA committees, any talk of opening haying before Aug. 2 was pre-empted by the lawsuit.

He said that date is too late - "impractically late" - in any case. He suggests the state's congressional delegation would have to be involved in a permanent change.

"This is about the National Wildlife Federation wanting to control haying for their own needs," Elkin said. "The nesting season is pretty well over by July 15, especially this year, when it's been so dry. We're cutting our own hay in June and by early July, the birds have already hatched out."

Tom France, attorney and a member of the National Wildlife Federation resource staff, said it's not right - and the court agreed - for the USDA to "walk around the law," when Congress intended the program to enhance soil conservation, wildlife and water quality.

He said the Aug. 2 date when haying is allowed on CRP in North Dakota has been in place for going on 15 years.

"It does reflect the biological realities out there," France said. "It's probably the right date. I know the science hasn't changed in 15 years."

Elkin said he thinks many producers are soured by the lawsuit intervention, for whatever difference it may or may not have made in North Dakota. He, too, believes hunters may feel more than autumn's chill in the air when they look for hunting access this fall.

"They (producers) don't believe a lot of these wildlife interests are seeing the importance of the producer on the land," Elkin said. "They're more concerned about wildlife than human life."[/quote]


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

"By LAUREN DONOVAN"

If you are a regular reader of the Bismarck Tribune, that's all you need to know. This lady has an agenda. And it's not pro-wildlife, or pro-hunter. It's pro-divisive. North Dakotan versus North Dakotan. Negative to the max.

Like the guy from USDA said -- CRP is not a hay management program. Any rancher that relies on CRP for hay is crazy -- or lazy. Not a very prudent way to prepare for extreme conditions that are sure to come. Not a very good business operation -- the real problem.

G/O -- who is the agriculture industry going to blame for its inability to properly manage its business after CRP is gone?? After its plowed up to grow marginal crops where they should have never been planted in the first place? You won't even find marginal hay then.

This reminds me of my favorite 'no hunting' signs of all time. About 15 years ago, farmers posted their CRP in response to legal action by the Audubon Society: "NO HUNTING ALLOWED. THIS LAND IS POSTED IN PROTEST OF USA FARM POLICY." Wow. On a CRP field. Clear thinking, that's for sure.

Good luck during the next drought. After you plow up all the CRP and a whole lot of more native prairie for your 20 acre wheat, there won't be a whole lot left for you or your livestock.

Don't worry though, just cry loud enough and long enough and get the right reporters from the Bismarck Tribune and the taxpayers will bail you out.

Maybe.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

tb said:


> "By LAUREN DONOVAN"
> 
> If you are a regular reader of the Bismarck Tribune, that's all you need to know. This lady has an agenda. And it's not pro-wildlife, or pro-hunter. It's pro-divisive. North Dakotan versus North Dakotan. Negative to the max.
> 
> ...


Great post TB...

So if I understand the story correctly, one farmer was depending on getting "emergency hay" from another farmer, and then getting angry when "the guvment" wouldn't allow the double dipping to occur. (The double dipping being that they get paid for CRP, however they only sorta want CRP just enough to get the payment, then they want to double dip and get paid top dollar to cut the "Set ASIDE acres" earlier so it will bring them a higher profit from cutting it sooner.

Then when a court decision doesn't go their way, they try to punish the very taxpayer that paid for the original CRP acres by placing blame that noone supported their strongarm whining tactics to be able to hay.

And they are looking for sympathy?

All these farmers must be Democrat. Heck they have to be if they are looking for another handout right?

Talk about double dipping on another welfare plan....

The next time CRP comes up for negotiation, there needs to be absolute clear terminology that CRP is considered long term set aside land, that NEVER can be used for haying purposes(except *one time *every 4 years to remove noxious or non native grasses), as the habitat acres are needed most urgently during North Dakota's harsh winters.

Anyone who truly pays attention to the "game" that is played is beyond tired of the same song and dance that happens every year like clockwork.

Has there ever been a year that "Emergency Disaster" haying wasn't requested? Hasn't every single year for the last 5 years been a disaster somewhere for someone?


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I would also like to see a stipulation in the CRP contracts that would prohibit posting it against hunting. All CRP land should be open to WALKING access just like PLOTS.

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> I would also like to see a stipulation in the CRP contracts that would prohibit posting it against hunting. All CRP land should be open to WALKING access just like PLOTS.
> 
> huntin1


Totally agree Huntin1


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Huntin 1,

You really know what you're talking about. If you are cold and walking past a house where the occupants are on fuel assistance, just go on in and sit by the stove. Afterall you are a taxpayer. And if you are hungry just go in the pantry full of food stamp grocerys. Help yourself, you subsidied it. Maybe the occupant is female with three illegitimate children on welfare and every other program the government is taxing out of your paycheck. Trespass, I like the way you think!


----------



## WingedShooter7 (Oct 28, 2005)

DG said:


> Huntin 1,
> 
> You really know what you're talking about. If you are cold and walking past a house where the occupants are on fuel assistance, just go on in and sit by the stove. Afterall you are a taxpayer. And if you are hungry just go in the pantry full of food stamp grocerys. Help yourself, you subsidied it. Maybe the occupant is female with three illegitimate children on welfare and every other program the government is taxing out of your paycheck. Trespass, I like the way you think!


Whoah, can someone summarize the article for me I don't understand it at all


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'll summarize it for you. The farmers got into CRP which is paid for by the taxpayer to set aside highly erodible land. Last time CRP came up it didn't meet the GAO cost benefit ratio. Much wildlife research had been done on CRP and organizations like the Wildlife Federation, the Wildlife Trust, and conservation groups lobbied to have wildlife values added to the CRP program. With wildlife values added it met the cost benefit ration of the GAO and was passed by congress.
Now the farmer has CRP, but like every other year they want to hay it. They have come to depend on the hay, even though they should not. When they tried to skirt the law this year some of the same organizations that lobbied to get CRP files a law suit stopping the haying. They still get to hay once in a while, but not every year and not until after a specified date. They wanted to violate that rule. 
Now in an election year our congressmen are trying to buy votes by passing a permanent disaster bill. That's like promising New Orleans disaster payments every year. I suppose a 30mph wind day they would consider a hurricane. Likewise with the farmers, many think every year is a disaster. The problem is they think they can bully the people who run the program. Now they want to blackmail the sportsmen into supporting them. 
In short many have planned on ripping off the system every year and when it doesn't work they want to punish the very people who pay them.
In the original CRP plan it called for no posting. That gave great credence to the old cliché the poop hitting the fan. Farmers wanted the program bad, but wanted to post also. Just another form of double dipping. Shaft the taxpayer when he turns left, and shaft him when he turns right. All self serving.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> G/O -- who is the agriculture industry going to blame for its inability to properly manage its business after CRP is gone?? After its plowed up to grow marginal crops where they should have never been planted in the first place? You won't even find marginal hay then.


Huh TB? I didn't write the article I felt it was news worthy and posted it.

Plainsman, Not true what you posted some contracts allow for haying 1/3 every year.


----------



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

huntin1 said:


> I would also like to see a stipulation in the CRP contracts that would prohibit posting it against hunting. All CRP land should be open to WALKING access just like PLOTS.
> 
> huntin1


I believe in MN that is the case. If you ask permission to hunt the land. They cannot say no IF thier lands are in CRP.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I believe in MN that is the case. If you ask permission to hunt the land. They cannot say no IF thier lands are in CRP


Thats not true


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

ruger1 said:


> huntin1 said:
> 
> 
> > I would also like to see a stipulation in the CRP contracts that would prohibit posting it against hunting. All CRP land should be open to WALKING access just like PLOTS.
> ...


WHAT?? :eyeroll:


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

R y a n said:


> huntin1 said:
> 
> 
> > I would also like to see a stipulation in the CRP contracts that would prohibit posting it against hunting. All CRP land should be open to WALKING access just like PLOTS.
> ...


I used to feel the same you as you two. But after thinking about it, IMO, I think the quality of deer hunting would decrease quite a bit in this state. I couldn't imagine all the posted CRP getting pounded day after day back where I hunt. The bucks would be wiped out in 1 season.


----------



## WingedShooter7 (Oct 28, 2005)

Ah ok thanks.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, Not true what you posted some contracts allow for haying 1/3 every year.


Your right. How much could they hay when the original CRP was introduced? Has it always been 1/3 every year? Do they have to make a payment back if they hay 1/3? So what's different this year, did they want to hay all of it? WOW.
I don't understand the mentality of signing up for a program, then wanting to break the rules without any consequences. When they sign up do they plan on trying to follow the rules, or are they always looking for ways to take advantage of the taxpayer? Everyone always thinks it's just the government, but hard working people are putting that money into the government. It doesn't grow on a government money tree. Of course they have been pulling off stuff like this for years haven't they?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Some of the rules were changed in th 2002 farm bill. Because of weed problems and trees growing in the CRP, it was determined, it would be beneficial to manage it somehow. Spray killed the trees and weeds but also the broadleaf legumes. Grasses by itself with no clipping, burning, grazing or disturbance dies out over time. It was determined that haying some of the dead stuff off every third year would be beneficial to all parties involved including wildlife.

In the process they made one mistake. They forget to come to this board and consult with the experts.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> It was determined that haying some of the dead stuff off every third year would be beneficial to all parties involved including wildlife.


Burning would be better, but I suppose they don't want the whole country side up in smoke. Haying would be better than four inches of residual shading the ground and stunting growth. There are also some invasive species that thrive under those poor conditions.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

tb said:


> Don't worry though, just cry loud enough and long enough and get the right reporters from the Bismarck Tribune and the taxpayers will bail you out.


Isn't that the truth!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

drjongy said:


> tb said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry though, just cry loud enough and long enough and get the right reporters from the Bismarck Tribune and the taxpayers will bail you out.
> ...


Ya they are starting to sound like resident hunters :beer:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

The thing is that farmers whine and cry and want free money all the time. Alot of farmers screw the government out of money and then still want more. Somewhere down the line it has to stop. Someone needs to stand up to the farmers and tell them no and stand by that.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

blhunter3 said:


> The thing is that farmers whine and cry and want free money all the time. Alot of farmers screw the government out of money and then still want more. Somewhere down the line it has to stop. Someone needs to stand up to the farmers and tell them no and stand by that.


bl, you should tell that to your boss,if you're still working on the farm. Make sure you tell all the landowners the same when asking permision this fall. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Ok, I will. When I lived in Wimbledon, ND I had a nieghbor by the name of xxxxxx xxxxx. He was an isurance guy there and he was teaching farmers how to screw the government out of money. It happens all over. im sick of it. People farmed just fine with out Federal Aid for years. What has happend now? That is what most farmers live on is Federal Aid. I can take you for a drive and show you how people are screwing the system

Edit by Bobm

In the future no names can be mentioned in issues like this the site can be sued for things like that.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Before this gets out of hand with the farmer bashing.....

BL.....are the farmers cheating or just using the system? Because if they are doing things illegal.....turn them in. Because if you know about it and are doing nothing you are just as bad as them.

Because if they are using a system that is in place.......I really can't blame them. I blame the system. The system needs to be revamped.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Chuck, why not let them bash farmers? I'm a big boy and can take it, I like to know how these guys feel about us before season opens.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Hey folks....

Consider this warning 1 and 2. If this keeps on the way it is going it will go away.

There will be no bashing on groups or specific entities here.


----------



## Gildog (Jan 30, 2007)

Why confine the complaints to CRP acres only? All of us farmers who make a living on the land also get direct payments for crop acres, subsidized crop insurance, cheap loans to build bins and buy equipment...by rights I guess everyone should be able just bunk out in the basement when hunting our place?

What I'd like to know, is if you are an average taxpaying hunter, how much of your tax bill pays for my crp...1 cent an acre? half of one cent? one hundredth of a cent? how much access do you think that will buy?

We all know how much access will be granted for rants like on this thread...


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> There will be no bashing on groups or specific entities here


Except for outfitters and N/R hunters :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I never said all farmers screw the system, but there are alot. If a person knows what to look for then they can see it. Again, not all farmers are bad just some. And those few that are bad, are making things worse for everyone.

As for granting land access, there is always public land to hunt on.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

G/o.....



> Chuck, why not let them bash farmers? I'm a big boy and can take it, I like to know how these guys feel about us before season opens.


Because farmers do a lot for small town communities and the country in general.

But here is my thing......if people know of farmers, "cheating" the system. Turn them in. If they are falsifying crop reports for insurance purposes.....turn them in that is insurance fraud. But if they are paying for crop insurance and then make a claim... That is fine.....They paid for the insurance.

In this articles case.....it seems that the farmer has become dependent on the CRP acres.

I want to know how the farmer did business before he was allowed to hay the CRP?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know I have just been sitting thinking about all this. It would appear that the government is trying to make as many people dependent as possible. Not just farmers, but all of us. The problem is sometimes we all think the other guy is getting a better deal. How do we combat this? If we don't it will only get worse. As long as we fight with each other our eye is really not on the ball. It sort of looks like the old western bank robber burning the church in the east end of town while they rob the bank in the west end of town. The only difference is these guys are our elected officials. 
Anyway, were all in this boat together, and rather than complain (which I will start the ball rolling by saying I am guilty too) we perhaps should think about: is there a solution?
The only thing I can think of is we drop a lot of government programs, and I am not talking just agriculture. Thoughts?


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Get rid of free money programs.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> You know I have just been sitting thinking about all this


.

Plainsman...I hope that's not true that you just now realized this. I have been aware of this for decades. Look at the Social Service stuff and stop wondering why the same old crooks get in every election. The people who are getting the handouts don't want change. I wish everyone dared to look forward for a change. :wink:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Chuck, actually Sec.Schaeffer was trying to help the housewives of america. When the corn prices shot 8 bucks this summer those of us who buy feed really felt the pinch. The housewives were complaining about the price of groceries. By offering CRP it would have lowered the use of feed. Now if we would have a drought or if the flood scare of last summer had been real, CRP would be gone. It was tossed around and they decieded to leave it alone. 90% if given the option today for an early out would be gone tomorrow.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> > You know I have just been sitting thinking about all this
> 
> 
> .
> ...


Ya, to tell the truth it has always been in the back of my mind. The other thing is I know farmers and hunters need each other, but which ones do I pick on first to make them appreciate each other? To me it simply looked easier to point out to farmers that we were of value to them and I would like them to appreciate people that are not farmers. On the other hand I am fully appreciative of them, but how do I complain and get them to think if I tell them that first? Blew it now didn't I?

If my relatives are right farmers would be better off if the government left them alone. Let them grow as much wheat as they want, let them do with their own land what they want. They will do the right thing if they make or loose money by their actions. 
On the other hand there are things that I don't consider support prices. I have no problem paying for conservation, because all of society benefits. I think I have thought that ever since we had our farm in the old soil bank program. Wetland drainage could be stopped almost instantly if we incorporate carbon credits to be purchased by power companies. Wildlife, farmers, hunters, and utility users would all win in a situation like that. No loosers, and few things in life are like that. At the same time, I would hope that these farmers didn't treat this program like they do some wetlands programs. I know one fellow who took thousands of dollars to keep wetlands, and started cutting ditches in less than 24 hours after the Fish and Wildlife guy left. Nothing happened, and that's why people are reluctant to turn them in. Maybe no one, farmer or hunter, or anyone should not look at him as a farmer, but as the criminal he was. Then we would not argue so much. Farmers feel they have to stick up for him because they are farmers, hunters stick up for hunters simply because they are hunters. It's time to forget that grade school code of ethics.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> It's time to forget that grade school code of ethics.


OMG did I read that right??? I don't see the grade school crowd leaving very soon, they are the very competitive sportsmen that hunt via computer etc....

It's been going downhill for quite a while all ready, with all the self proclaimed pro hunters out there. Its a bunch of hogwash!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> > It's time to forget that grade school code of ethics.
> 
> 
> OMG did I read that right??? I don't see the grade school crowd leaving very soon, they are the very competitive sportsmen that hunt via computer etc....
> ...


I think I'm getting old. I have to tell you what I run into once that I thought was neat. I kind of look at this site in the same way. We were in White Sulphur Springs, Montana. This was about 20 years ago. They had a sports shop in that little town that was nearly new. In the middle there was an area about 20 by 20 feet with a VCR, hunting videos, coffee, cookies, and about five or six old guys sitting around talking hunting. I thought that was as good as being out in the Mountains. Man, I wish we had a sport shop like that around here. This site sort of fills that niche for me.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Similar thread going on FBO

You know me, just stopping by to help out.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Plainsman I also use this site for entertainment only, it is not even close to actually hunting for me but like you say its a good place to tell stories. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

buckseye said:


> Plainsman I also use this site for entertainment only, it is not even close to actually hunting for me but like you say its a good place to tell stories. :beer:


Ya, and when your getting to old to do some of it it's nice to try help the younger crowd. I don't know much, but I try pass what I can along. I want the descendants I will never meet to hunt like I have had the opportunity to, and the descendants of all on here. 
To you farmers out there I hope your descendants enjoy the land as you have. Good luck to all of us right? :beer:


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I agree with g/o....let's change this to Bashing the Guides and Outfitters.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Because of the WF law suit you now can only hay once every 5 years instead of 3 years. We hayed 1/3 of our CRP every year. The next year it is alot better than the CRP that was not. If you hay you loose 25% of payment for those acres that year.We manage our land for hunting and would not hay if it was not better for the wildlife. I am thinking about removeing one of our CRP contracts because of this change. This was a bad decision by the Wildlife Federation. We trade the hayed CRP in exchange for getting our food plots planted. Now we will have to pay two years or not plant food plots those two years. About CRP lands being open to hunters,no one would sign up. I could see adding money to contracts that allow public hunting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I could see adding money to contracts that allow public hunting.


 :thumb:

Add $10 an acre to non posted land, remove $10 from posted land. It's a free country they can take it or leave it. It wouldn't cost the taxpayer a penny more, and it would reward the average farmer. If they restore wetlands that store carbon give them another $20 an acre. With habitat and carbon storage everyone in the nation is a winner. I can see giving the farmers something substantial for that.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Say ND has 3 millon acres in CRP. You would loose about 1/2 of that with that plan. I know we would cash rent at least 3/4 of our CRP and make alot more money but wildlife would suffer. Would not help, when we are already looseing habitat. It is fiction anyway,would never happen.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Drakekiller, what would you need per acre to keep land in CRP. What would you want under today's plan, and what would you want to leave it unposted? If you restored wetlands for the period the land was in CRP what would you want per acre? If you restored the wetlands and they had to stay that way what would you want per acre?

How would you feel about CRP if the payments were floating and kept pace with comparable land rent in your county and reassessed each year? What would make CRP attractive to you in today's economy? Lets say the NRCS went out and looked at ten fields in the same soil type and what they were renting for then based your payment on that with a bonus for leaving it unposted. Does that sound better than the current program?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> This was a bad decision by the Wildlife Federation.


Drakekiller, Glad to see we agree on something


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Well for one, if I could restore any wetland I would do it even if it cost some money to do it. Our land is in Emmons county and there is not alot of sloughs. Do have a spring that was not fenced in a valley and was used for cattle(6 acres). We fenced it about four years ago. Transplanted some cattails in it, and planted a hundred and fifty shrubs. Looks good now. In fact two weeks ago kicked a big mule deer buck out of it. We also planted 4000 Junipers and shrubs in 6 differant plantings(no cost share). In a few years it will be great habitat. Tons of work,but enjoyable.
I think a floating pay scale would be fair, but I would keep it in at our low current rates. My family all hunt so we would not be interested in making it public,but I am sure it would keep more acres in. A lot of contracts are not being offered after they expire. We have two contracts one got extended for 10 years with slight increase in price,and the other for 5 years at same price.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

G/O
Did'nt we agree on that blond at dinner.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Drakekiller, that's a lot of work you put in. I sure hope you have some good hunting, you deserve it. I hope they come up with another conservation plan also. Thanks for the input it's good to hear your opinions.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Hunting last wk end in Logan county we stopped at a farm to get the ok to hunt some land that was not posted. The farmer a state Senator asked us if we were members of any sportmens groups. He wanted us to tell them how upset farmers are about the haying issue. Also, things might be all posted up. By the way his score on the score card F. I think he scored 31 pts out of 113. Well I think he did score better than Aaron Krauter. Ha Ha


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Drakekillerm, I must say it has been a pleasure talking with you. Many of our debates on the site have turned into us against them type arguments. We are all plagued somewhat with that old third grade theme of loyalty without thought. I was a biologist, but I know not all biologists are perfect, or even good for that matter. It often appears that when you don't like one landowner or what they do farmers all stick together. We all know that not all of them can be as perfect as some would like us to think. There are good and bad in every group. Your conversation doesn't appear to be plagued with that and I appreciate the honest open opinions you have given me on things. In the future I hope you don't mind a PM from me for advise from time to time. Thanks.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Wow this thread has really turned around since I quit. I wonder if that means something? :lol:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

If you want upland birds or nesting ducks you must have bugs for the young to eat, if you want bugs you must have green foliage. So Like Drakekiller wrote it is better for the wildlife if CRP is hayed every three years, more natural and suited to their needs.

How about a program land could be put in on a yearly basis, if its a disaster year and the landowner needs to use it he would just forfeit all payment for that year. I don't know, historically set aside programs seem to end.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So Like Drakekiller wrote it is better for the wildlife if CRP is hayed every three years, more natural and suited to their needs.


I would say haying 1/3 of it would be good. They also need spring nesting cover, and winter thermal cover. I don't want them haying every year. They get so they plan on it and want a disaster every year. On the other hand I would look at haying as maintenance of the habitat and not require that they forfeit any payment for 1/3. I would increase the payment if they used fire to manipulate the habitat every fourth year.



> How about a program land could be put in on a yearly basis, if its a disaster year and the landowner needs to use it he would just forfeit all payment for that year.


I would have to think about it for a while. It sounds good on the surface, but if they have a good stand of vegetation and a lot of birds come to it just before it gets hayed then it would be a death trap and worse than nothing. Delayed haying would be ok. I think that should be done on a yearly basis also. If nesting is good and the birds are off by early to mid July let the farmer hay then. If the first nesting attempt is destroyed by rainy weather and there is a second attempt that doesn't come off until August don't let them hay until then. Let them hay in July with a full refund to the government and let them hay in August with a 75% refund to the government. After all they have provided habitat for the nesting period, but not winter.

The problem could arise who decides when the haying can be done. That would have to be determined before hand and agreed upon in the contract.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Wow this thread has really turned around since I quit. I wonder if that means something? :lol:


We will all have to thank Drakekiller for that. :thumb:


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

It's a tough issue as I have a brother and sister in-law with six kids who ranch in sw ND and you want to see tough times the last few years go out there. They hayed CRP to stay afloat and when people are struggling like that they need help. I wan't aware of the CRP fight with the wildlife fed and as a hunter I feel embarrassed that we are arguing with people trying to feed families in order to keep pheasants etc. around. I think paying extra for land access with CRP is a great idea, but I don't like when someone gets CRP money and then charges more money on top of it to hunt. I used to think differently being from the eastern part of the state but after marrying a girl from sw nd and seeing first-hand what people struggle with out there it changed the way I think and see things.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Drakekiller said:


> G/O
> Did'nt we agree on that blond at dinner.


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> I would say haying 1/3 of it would be good.


Yep thats what I meant, 1/3 each year making it every three years for each 1/3. haha look out I'm thinking again. :lol:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Drakekiller said:


> G/O
> Did'nt we agree on that blond at dinner.


Who bought more tickets from her, I can't remember ot the color of her eye's


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

They all look good when looked at through the bottom of a beer mug :beer:

kinda generic :lol:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

> Who bought more tickets from her, I can't remember ot the color of her eye's


She had eyes???? News to me!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I have a observation does anyone else question the animosity these ranchers have toward hunters and hunting groups when the root of their feed cost problems is fellow farmers in corn producing states.

Farmers not hunters are behind the ethanol boondoogle thats runs the price of cattle feed (and virtually everything else up).

corn state farmers in states like Iowa lobby for this with for their own personal gain , and detriment to the country, and screw their fellow farmers that produce cattle and poultry.

Somehow the animosity ends up being directed at the hunters for simply expecting ranchers to respect contracts they willingly made????

I do see the squeeze ranchers are in I'm in the poultry business and my business is way off because of feed prices, but I don't blame hunters.

*One group of farmers screwing the other group of farmers in a govt vote buying scandalous scheme of misdirecting our national assets, and its the hunters fault??*

Are we as a nation so dumbed down not to see this obvious fact?

This is going to continue until the people of this country use some common sense and decide to use the oil under our feet for fuel and the crops we grow for food.

And at the risk of turning this into a politcal issue (and it most certainly is) which party.... who in congress is prohibiting oil drilling, nuclear plants ect.

Until we reach that conclusion and vote accordingly feed will remain high, food costs will continue to rise and fuel will continue to rise.

We all are getting screwed and we alll know it, but no one with any rational thought process can lay the blame at the feet of hunters.

I will say this though hunters and hunting groups will have to get over the not drilling mentality as well, they go too far in the "pristine no use of resources ".

Everything on this thread is a result of fuel.... we need it as a nation, the only one thats practical at this point in time is oil.

So we must get our oil while working on alternatives.

Corn ethanol will never be beneficial we should stop subsidizing it immediately but continue research on the process until an alternative process with something that doesn not compete with food production is usable AND FISCALLY sound.

Corn is food not fuel.

*I could go on but I'll get off my soapbox, and if this turns into a repubican vs democrat thread I'll delete any posts of that nature its not my intent to start that. I'm just trying to point out where we should be directing our efforts, no matter what your political stripe is.*

We all have to eat, we all need fuel, and we all need to compromise.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Bobm, interesting observation. Let me give it a couple more twists. The last two books I've read have been on the colonization of the western hemisphere. Bloody dirty reading.

Natives had a culture of minimal extraction from a large land area. Immigrants had a culture of maximum extraction from a small land area. However, since there were so many, they needed many small areas. Over simplified but it works.

The two could not co-exist when force was the detrimining factor. Maximum extraction was dependent on slavery, either economic or physical labor. In most colonies economic power quickly passed to a small minority because of the political structure. (trickle up maybe?)

In this case hunters replace native culture, wishing to extract a few animals that need a large area, (CRP, public land, etc). Agriculturial producers replace the colonists, wishing to utilize every scrap of land for production. (break sod, drain wetlands, turn it into cash).

Put this scenario in a North Dakota climate with extreme weather swings affecting the goal of both sides and the sparks fly. The differance between then and now is who writes the law that levels the playing field. Because force of arms is no longer allowed. Commidity PACs have the politcal ear of law makers. But conservation groups are gaining that leverage too, and also know how to use the courts. It is a natural contest of wills in power politics.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Dick, If you don't believe "force of arms is still allowed" dont pay your taxes ...if you resist long enough the arms will come out, thats because government is the only entity that has the societal given right to use force.

thats why my point about where the problem lies is "US", because ultimately we are the govt.

Each and everyone of us needs to step back a try to look at the whole picture not just their part of the OX getting gored. If that does'nt happen we will be locked in the downward spiral we are currently entering.

Every side of this issue has some valid points, evironmentalists, farmers, general citizens we all have a stake in this.

And the whole thing boils down to fuel and how we are going to power our economy, all of us have had our collective "head in the sand" for at least the last 35 years. And corn is not the best choice of fuel if it was it would not need subsidization.

Until that issue is addressed these side issues will continue to simmer and distract us from the real problem, much to the delight of the few special interests who do realize it and use govt to their advantage.

this country runs on oil and will for the forseeable future until we see that common sense plain as day fact we cannot move forward toward solutions all of society can live with comfortably.

people dont want to follow political issues even when nothing else has more affect on their everyday life.

Guys like you and I realize this but most don't so they accept sound bite solutions and blame, and powerful people manipulate all of us against one another.

Hunters ( who are really a combination of general citizens ranchers, farmers ect) farmers, ranchers we all are in this together we all are dependent on one another


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

When you get back up here we have to get together for a :beer: ! Then I can show you the error of your ways and you can point out the faults in my dog. I have to read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" before that day.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Dick, If you don't believe "force of arms is still allowed" dont pay your taxes ...if you resist long enough the arms will come out, thats because government is the only entity that has the societal given right to use force.


If people don't understand that they should perhaps look into the Gordon Kahl incident and explain why he is ashes now instead of walking around. I didn't agree with the guy because he was completely willing to take his grain support checks, but he didn't want to pay any taxes.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Dick Monson said:


> When you get back up here we have to get together for a :beer: ! Then I can show you the error of your ways and you can point out the faults in my dog. I have to read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" before that day.


I am certain your dog has far fewer faults than I do, and I never criticize another mans dog or wife, especially if she can hear us :lol: :beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Plainsman and Bobm, maybe I can't articulate the thought well, but it seems that our society still has a frontier mentality toward natural resources, energy, mining, forests, soil, water, etc. The premise of the first post in the thread was drought is a disaster. ( I think it is a natural and not unexpected occurance.) So farmers want to cut CRP on land they don't control, for hay. When instead possibly they should manage forage in other years for the drought years. But few do because they have to maximize production to stay on the treadmill.

The farm program and disaster provisions are harmfull long term because they inflate the true $ value taken from the land. (land worth say $200 an acre is suddenly worth $500 an acre if it is subsidized with disaster programs, farm programs, Federal crop insurance). But that same land can't produce more income than before because it is still the same soil type and under the same weather conditions. Yet competition says these fellows have to buy into the trap or go out of business.

So long term who benifits from the fedral program? Not the farmer because he has to buy inflated inputs. Not the consumer becuse he buys the same inflated food. Possibly the politicans who buy the vote from the special interests? But in the mean time we degrade the land to sell someting we can't afford to produce or consume.

Anyway, been out six times since grouse season opened and haven't seen a "chill in the air". Everybody has been very cordial in hunting country.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Kahl killed a US Marshall who I knew and was a friend of my dad. :******:

Ken was a fine man who as he neared retirement ran a sporting art framing business out of his home. His work hangs in my home.

Kahl is not a martyr. He is right where he belongs -- 6 feet under dropping straight into the fires of HELL.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Those with any doubts on Kahl can look at what he did to the injured Marshall. The other US Marshall killed that day was Cheshire:

From US Court records:



> They then observed a man approach Cheshire and fire two shots at him at point-blank range. Although the witnesses initially identified Faul as the executioner, it was subsequently determined that he had not fired the shots, and that in all likelihood, Gordon Kahl had executed Marshal Cheshire.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> Ken was a fine man


Well for once we agree, I knew Ken and his family and didn't deserve what he got.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Found this on the guy ole Gordy, apparently his own words. I was only three at the time, but ive heard about it my whole life.

Sounds like a bit of a wacko.

http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/kahl01.htm


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I'ts been a long time since I did any haying but to make a blanket statement that mid August is to late to get quality hays is bull. With adequate rains it is still possible to get decent quality hay in August. In the case mentioned above I doubt even if it was available at the end of July it would have produced quality hay. Some rancher friends out west told me because of the drought out there they didn't get ANY quality hay all summer. My point is, blaming the gov in this case is just a rant.


----------

