# Grasslands Get Squeezed As Another 1.6 Million Acres



## questor (Oct 4, 2011)

PBS Dan Charles read this on air this am.

Grasslands Get Squeezed As Another 1.6 Million Acres Go Into Crops

In 2005, I spent several days touring CRP land in both North Dakota and Kansas. In North Dakota, biologist Ron Reynolds, then with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, led me into a field of tall grass. He pulled back some of the grass and showed me a nest with seven duck eggs. "The eggs are warm," he said. "You can feel the eggs. [The mother duck] is just starting to incubate."

Reynolds was ecstatic about how CRP fields were helping to bring back duck populations. 
http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/grasslands-get-squeezed-another-16-million-acres-go-crops


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Which of course is why the ND Clean Water, Wildlife, and Parks Measure is so important to the outdoor future of ND. Without habitat there is no wildlife and without wildlife there is no hunting.

I could count on one hand the number of pheasant hunters I've seen in the last month. There were only two groups of deer hunters that stopped by my farm this fall. Compare that to previous years. I have to wonder if the situation is sinking in yet?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I have to wonder if the situation is sinking in yet?


For some it hasn't. For others they don't care they worship the dollar. For still others they think the future is kissing up to someone who has land they may get to hunt. Good luck with that. Meanwhile the wildlife suffers and people are trying to take all of that money for themselves. For some 95% isn't enough. They can't let conservation and wildlife have 5%, my my that's too much money.

What is it that tells some people that they are more entitled to land than anyone else. If the seller is paid it's no ones business.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Just put thanks for the decline in CRP where it should go, subsidizing biofuels and everyone who pushed for it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> Just put thanks for the decline in CRP where it should go, subsidizing biofuels and everyone who pushed for it.


blhunter3 ist's a pleasure having you and Dick on this site. Your both farmers, but your both also conservationists. If everyone was like the two of you there would be little need for regulations. Unfortunately there are many who think land that doesn't have a plow running through it is worthless. I have a relative that I think a lot of who seen the Rocky Mountains as waste land.

You will notice a few on this site that never post in the hunting forms, never post in rifle, shotgun, or handgun forms, never post in fishing, but they are always in the hot topics defending every bad ag practice that comes along. They call themselves conservationists while at the same time bad mouthing every conservation group other than the Natural Resource Conservation Service which works for agriculture. Don't get me wrong I think NRCS is a great organization and we would have the dirty 30's again without them. My point is how narrow minded they are. Government conservation organizations are terrible but the ones that work for them are OK. I hope most people on here understand that those guys are on here to simply protect their gravy train. They have every right to do it, but you have every right to know what their game is.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

We need CRP, but we also need to eat.

CRP needs to up there payments, and be more flexible then 10 year locked in contracts.

Ag guys need to quit relying on insurance payments. Not that you ever get rich or make money on insurance, but it if you farm enough land, you can spread everything and be just fine.

There is a fine line with CRP and ag, and like always when the governemnt gets involved its a wreck.

Naturalist have to agree that farming practices have changed a lot with prescion ag, tillage practices, chemicals, and seed selection. Not every farmer is raping the land and to lump everyone together isn't right.

Shelter belts were needed all over, but not anymore. Sure they are great for wildlife, but now they are all old and dying and need to come out.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Shelter belts were needed all over, but not anymore.


Yes, and no. The old dead ones don't do much. However, I don't think you or I have seen a drought like the 1930's. Dry years, but also many consecutive. If it gets real dry your not going to plant. If you do only irrigated fields. What percent in North Dakota is irrigated. If plants don't grow on a field it's going to blow. I think we need to replace the dead belts. People always say something isn't going to happen, then down the road it does.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Too me shelter belts do more bad then good. They hold snow, so it takes longer to warm up and thaw out, they rob water and nutrients from the plants, and they also over shade the crop. They can also harbor bad insects, as well as over winter diseases' too. You can see the difference in the yield moniter while out combining, or when you run the Varus machine for soil testing.

Area's of no till and minimum till, shelter belts are not needed either.

Places of conventional till they are needed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If I could live another 100 years I would take some people up on a little wager. I'll bet there will be another time when mother nature and land abuse cause a serious problem.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> If I could live another 100 years I would take some people up on a little wager. I'll bet there will be another time when mother nature and land abuse cause a serious problem.


Oh, no doubt she will get cause a wreck. But you cannot force farmers to build soil health when rent prices keep rising. Why would someone want to spend money on land that isn't yours?


----------

