# The Future of Duck and Goose Hunting in North Dakota...



## TakeThatDrake

I sent this to the North Dakota Game and Fish... I was wondering you guys think...

"The Future of Duck and Goose Hunting in North Dakota"
Kind of dramatic I know! Haha I have been coming to your great state as long as I can remember, it is my absolute favorite place to hunt deer/ducks/geese. North Dakota is truly unique on a number of different fronts. One of which is the amount of hunting land available through WPA's, WMA's P.L.O.T.S., etc&#8230; Also the ability to hunt unposted land. That is what I wish to inquire about. I am a nonresident hunter from Minnesota. Over the years I have noticed more and more land getting posted by landowners. It seems it's getting harder and harder to find land to access these days. I field hunt for ducks and have found it very difficult to find even fields to hunt over the past few years. Hear me out&#8230; I am in no way complaining about land being posted. Obviously any landowner has the right to post his/her land. I have talked to farmers and most have increased the amount of land they post for a lot of different reasons. Outfitters are leasing more and more land, and some farmers think&#8230; hey, I might as well post my land and get paid for letting people on my property. Others have had negative experiences with people hunting on their land. People leaving trash, dressed birds, shells, etc. on their land and this turns them off as well. No matter what the reason, more and more posted land in North Dakota will eventually mean less hunters in North Dakota and less revenue for the state.

I hunted 8 days the last week of October around the DL area for the 2010 season. We timed our trip right, there were ducks everywhere. I usually in a 7-8 day trip mark roughly 5-10 spots on the map where there are 500+ mallards feeding in a field. Last year I had 23 spots marked on the map with 500+ mallards feeding in a field. Sounds great right. Well over the course of our 8 day trip we logged 2400 miles, made 30+ phone calls and made 15+ stops at people's houses trying to get permission to hunt one of these spots. We were not able to get permission on any of these spots. I did not shoot a mallard in North Dakota last year. I would say I usually have better luck than your average hunter, I have a great field setup and we usually don't have trouble getting our birds. It has however gotten harder and harder over the last few years due to not being able to get permission. I have heard the same from every hunting party I have talked to over the last few years as well. Two other groups of hunters at our motel were not sure if they were coming back for the 2011 season due to the same reasons. I'm not sure what the overall harvest numbers have indicated. Might be hard to know for sure trying to factor in the number of hunters and the fluctuating duck populations. Again, I am not complaining, I am not deterred in the least, I have just, okay almost as much fun whether I shoot birds or not. I am definitely coming back this season but I am trying a different area this year.

One reason that I have heard many times from farmers is that they deer hunt on their land but could care less about the ducks or the geese. They post their land for deer hunting. I guess this is what I am trying to address in my rambling here! I think the NDGF for the sake of all the duck and goose hunters that hunt in your state should think about a solution to this. I would propose having 2 different posted signs. One for posting for deer hunting/no trespassing at all. And one posted sign that allows duck and goose hunting but no deer hunting. You could have them printed with different text, or simply make them 2 different colors. I think if you slightly cut back on the number of P.L.O.T.S. land that the state pays for (honestly a lot of the P.L.O.T.S. land is unusable to hunters). I have seen a lot of bare tilled fields or flat/grazed cattle ground that has been made into P.L.O.T.S. The state could use this money to print signs that would be available to land owners wanting to put up new signs for the upcoming year. And to explain the 2 color system. Or, increase the cost of non-resident waterfowl licenses slightly in order to pay for the signs. If explained, I don't think non-resident hunters would have a problem paying a few extra dollars if they thought it might lead to them getting a little more access to land.

I'm not excepting a change overnight, or even in a year or two. Over the course of the next several years however, more and more land could be posted using this 2 color system. Eventually making it easier for waterfowlers to hunt your great state. If explained to farmers and landowners that hunters do bring a lot of revenue to your state, they might be more understanding when it comes to posting their land. They might opt for the 2 color system, allowing more opportunities for hunters. Like I said at the beginning, I love hunting in North Dakota. I would like to be able to hunt it for years to come. If all land is completely posted and the only way to hunt is with an expensive outfitter, I just see the number of hunters going down in the future. I'm just throwing and idea out there that might keep the tradition of duck and goose hunting in North Dakota alive.

Thanks for your time! [email protected]


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com

Having 2 colored signs would be nice, I'm not sure how many would adopt it though.


----------



## TakeThatDrake

I'm not sure how many would either... maybe some sort of compensation paid for with waterfowl liscences...? I'm not sure, just and idea I wanted to throw out there...


----------



## FLOYD

While I respect you taking the initiative, I think you have basically 0% chance you'll have much luck. Not trying to be a dick, but chances are if its posted, the landowner wants to know who's out there at the very least. Your idea wouldn't address that at all unless I'm missing something.

Also, a few unknowing duck hunters messing up the landowner's chance at a wallhanger buck during deer season would be the end of said landowner using your proposed signs.

Unfortunately, we are in a period where people are just going to have to accept the way things are and accept that chances are things arent going to improve for ordinary Joe any time too soon. In my opinion, the sooner people accept that and just make the best of it, the more enjoyment they'll get out of their outings. Some things suck, just gotta roll with the punches I guess.

Good luck on your trip this year.


----------



## TakeThatDrake

Oh I agree... I don't think anything will change either. I always try and find out how's land it is anyway whether it is posted or not. I always try to be as respectful as possible. I just see North Dakota going the way of all the other states out there and think that eventually it will be extremely hard to get access to hunting land. In turn, not as many hunters will visit NoDak and alot of small town buisnesses will suffer. I always love going out there regardless... What do ya do I guess...


----------



## KEN W

1 thing you are evidently not aware of......not all PLOTS is paid for.You say money would be better spent on good cover instead of pastures or worked fields.There most likely is no money spent there.

Example.....landowner is approached and asked if he would put his land into PLOTS.GNF says .....we will only pay you for the land in CRP or with good cover.Farmer says he wants all his land into PLOTS.GNF says.....no problem.We can put all your land into PLOTS but you will only be paid for the good stuff.

So all that farmer's land goes into PLOTS,but he is only paid for some of it.Yet it all counts as being in PLOTS.So I see no money here to put somewhere else.

Farmers who hunt deer or who have relatives or friends who hunt deer,would never go along with this idea.....Nice idea....not going to happen.


----------



## TakeThatDrake

Oh cool... I love the PLOTS program, not trying to knock it at all. Just thinking out loud about ways to increase field hunting opportunities for hunters. Last year i was forced on the water because I tried... I mean I really tried (2400 miles worth) to find a decent field but couldn't track anyone down. We'll just have to try harder to get permission.


----------



## TakeThatDrake

Kind of a related topic... I run into this alot. See a field with feeding mallards, everything is perfect. Then on one corner of the field is 10 year old posted sign, not signed, not dated. I have always steared clear not wanting to piss anyone off and ruin it for other hunters. The field is not legally posted, I have wasted days trying to track down the owner of fields like this, kind of frustrating, but again don't want to give hunters a bad name...


----------



## slough

Not a bad idea. I just wish it were totally legal to enter posted land if it at least doesn't have a name on the sign. Makes it awful tough often to find an owner.

I too wonder about the future of duck hunting. I kind of doubt I'll do it as much in the future. I love it but spending 50 bucks per scouting trip to only get shot down for permission makes a guy wonder sometimes...


----------



## NDhunter08

On the other hand, it is sure nice to be from the area and know the local farmers :thumb:


----------



## Blue Plate

If you didn't shoot a mallard in North Dakota last year you should take up golf.


----------



## TakeThatDrake

I'm a pretty good golfer as well... I had a few chances to jump a pothole or two. I prefer field hunting and having mallards landing at my feet. I usually can limit out on greenheads if i can get a decent field to hunt. That was the point of my rambling. The area I was in, everything was posted... everything. I'm not against posting, i'm just brainstorming ideas to try and make some more land available to hunters. Anyone can shoot a few mallards jumping potholes or setting up in a slough. I prefer field hunting is all...


----------



## carlan23

My dad and I are both landowners in north central ND. I post certain fields so I can waterfowl hunt them since I know they are good, but still leave lots of land un-posted and anyone can hunt it. Most people around us including us post to keep out of staters off since we have all had such piss poor dealings with them in the past. Between trash in the field, making a highway in your field, hunting repeatedly day after day with one day consent, hunting in standing crop with no consent, etc etc. Out of staters can thank their predecessors for this, as landowners here have a very long term memory. Respect for landowners property would equal a lot less posting I can guarantee it.


----------



## TakeThatDrake

I think that is the answer right there... We need to educate all hunters, resident or nonresident, to be more respectful of the landowners and the land. What I thought was common sense doesn't quite sink in with everyone I guess. If we want to have as many oppurtunities as possible to hunt in the future, we need to show respect and be courteous whenever possiable. Each hunter in a sense is representing all hunters present and future. If we all go afield with this mentality it will pay off in the long run!

Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong...


----------



## PJ

Blue Plate said:


> If you didn't shoot a mallard in North Dakota last year you should take up golf.


Or you were hunting the wrong area. Still plenty of places where there is little to no posters you can get to. Especially if you are willing to drive an extra 2,400 miles! :bop:


----------



## TakeThatDrake

Haha! I know I come off pretty stupid. Obviously anyone can jump a few potholes, etc... and shoot a few mallards that way. I've shot enough ducks for 2 lifetimes. I come to NoDak to field hunt for Mallards. If I can't find a good field, I have a blast just driving around and taking in the senery, seeing deer/ducks/geese in abundunce. I only have 5-6 days of hunting out there a season. Not a lot of time to scout/get permission/hunt. It usually works out good, last year not so lucky. So this year I am trying a new area, hopefully it goes well!


----------



## carlan23

Got a phone call at 5:00 today from a co-worker. Dumbasses with Texas plates shooting snows/blues off of water on our posted land at yes 5:00 pm. Mind you this is past shooting hours and before NR hunting opens. I'd pretty much bet my left nut that these guys are from the oilfields and well enough said. I'm not going to get in a debate on the image of the out of state oilfield workers. I worked construction for quite some time and trust me we have no shortage of dumbasses in our state as well. Regardless, a fine example of what 2 idiots in a pickup do to ruin the image of most out of staters that are probably just fine.


----------



## BigT

TakeThatDrake said:


> I usually can limit out on greenheads if i can get a decent field to hunt.


Yep, I believe that statement may hold true for many people..... :wink:


----------



## dakotashooter2

Something I have noticed over the past few years is many deer hunters that own land will not let anyone on to hunt anything. They are so worried that "thier deer" are going to get chased off the property they don't want any activity on it at all. Sadly it is a misconception that the deer are going to abandon their home territory. Most often they just move into the deepest cover till the intrusion is gone.And for what it is worth that big 12 point buck may not even stay in his home territory when the rut begins. If they did the inbreeding would show up in just a few years.............


----------



## lesser

I would say if you want to point a finger at something that will ruin hunting and fishing quicker thatn anything it would be websites like this one. Other than a few pointers here and there on the stuff done at home to prepare for hunting I don't see anything that would help the sport, but probably hurt it. This is all bragging and bickering. Some of the North Dakotans want others to hunt and some hate other hunters. Half the bashing on here is pointed at out of staters. Well then don't tell them everything and brag to them and they might not come over there. It has also been making land owners feel like posting land after hearing all the horror stories on what actually goes on in the field. Just a thought. Good hunting


----------



## water_swater

Take that drake,

You identified the problem correctly, its too late for your solution.

Put yourself in the landowners shoes. Imagine owning a field next to Hwy 2 with 20,000 greenheads doing it in a field right next to the the highway.

Not posted - You sleep there and hope you beat the other 20 setups, then they show up and hunt anyway, or surround it with field and water spreads. If you live close its constant pounding, if it rains it's rut city.

Posted - You get 75 million visitors and phone calls wanting to hunt.

The best option is to let the guides lease it, they'll post it, take the calls, and pay you.

Most farmers make little cash from hunting and the season is just a pain in the ***. With crop prices the way they are its easier to post it all and not answer any 218 phone calls. That way you don't have anybody messing up your land. The motels and service business's actually care if your in town. They lobby the legislature pushing good idea's like the hunter pressure concept away, and eventually ruining it for the do it yourself hunter.

I appreciate you understand the quality of hunting in Devils Lake has depreciated, but the leasing comes because the intense pressure pushes birds to essentially managed private refuges. The guides know this and hunt the area's the birds will leave first moving the high dollar area's later. This revenue you claim to bring to the city is what has caused the problem in the first place. There is handful of people making alot of money, however, enrollment is still dropping in Devils Lake. Hunting and fishing has saved nothing, it has only sold the experience to NR ruining it for the average joe.


----------



## jaultman

water_swater said:


> ... its easier to post it all and not answer any 218 phone calls. ...


Any reason you chose 218 numbers? I'd expect most issues come from 612, 763, and 651.


----------



## DUCKWHISPERER

Good thing I'm a 952er... :eyeroll:


----------



## bornlucky

The two best ways to get onto land would be: 1) pay an outfitter to guide you, or 2) move your family to a small rural town located in an area that you like to hunt. The schools need your kids, the churches need your donation, the local businesses need your patronage, the fire department and ambulance department need you to volunteer your time to keep them viable.

If you pick option 2), be prepared to take a pay cut by a about a third. But hey, you can offset that with the lower cost of living. At least that is what those of us who pick #2 keep telling ourselves.

Our small towns are losing population dreadfully fast. We need people to live in rural ND for 12 months out of the year, not 5 days. I can't tell you how grateful I am to the local farmers who give us local residents priority over those who drive in for the day or the week. Thank you for all of you who do that.


----------



## HuntAll 1208

The debate over why a farmer posts their land is a one no one could ever say they won.

It could be because they deer hunt (and yes, shotgun blasts day in and day out will push deer out of that area), or that they don't like ruts or constant traffic by their farmyard.

Does it really matter, though? They paid a lot of money for that land, and pay taxes every year on it. Sometimes they make money on it, sometimes they don't.

I'm on both sides of the fence, since I hunt all over the state and my family owns land. Who's right is it to tell us we shouldn't post it because there are 1,000 mallards feeding in my field? Or that we are tough to get a hold of to ask us to hunt our posted land? If they wanted it easy, they would have listed their phone number.

I think the answer is if you don't like asking for permission, buck up and buy a few sections of land. Cash rent it out, and post it tighter than tight! Then it's yours to deal with, as long as the crops are good and your payments are made!


----------



## Gyllen35

If I owned a bunch of land I would post all of it. With my name and number clearly printed on the sign. I would call it armchair scouting. Let everyone call in to ask for permission (deny them after figuring out which field) then hunt it for myself in the morning. :wink:


----------



## INhonker1

Hunted NODAK for 9 seasons. Saw a bunch of non sense out of non resident...as well as resident hunters near the end of the 9 years. It seemed to me that when Canada changed their laws regarding DUI s and entering into Canada that the game in Nodak really changed. More and more and more hunters stopping in North Dakota and more problems too the last 3 years I hunted there. I could tell there was a shift in farmers attitudes as well. Luckily I had built up good relations with a few that had good consistent year to year fields. That probably saved my last trip in 2008 from turning into a 2400 mile no mallard shoot. I put in for a different state lottery now...and when if I dont get in I head north with the rest of the non DUI club. :beer:


----------



## shadow

talk to a lot of hunters, residents and non-residents, what is happening to our state will be the end of what makes North dakota great. Sure there will be areas to hunt, but people will quickly learn that competition and birds being chased by 20 groups for one field in 10 square miles that you can hunt, is not worth the time or effort.

Residents yell, cheer and pump their fists in excitement, Its all about me right! Well remember this simple fact.

On average, 20,000 non resident tags are sold at $100 a piece. That brings in immediately $200,000 to the state without another penny for crane/swan tags. Not to mention, it brings in no money to you who owns the hotel, you who owns the gas station, grocery store, tavern, restaurant, or any other business that benefits from the money brought in! Oh wait, what would happen if someone like Delta Waterfowl or Ducks Unlimited would pull their dollars elsewhere because it is in the best interest of the majority of people? If those two groups, Delta and Ducks pulled out because the majority of its members could not appreciate what they are paying for, where would your habitiat be?


----------



## KEN W

shadow said:


> Oh wait, what would happen if someone like Delta Waterfowl or Ducks Unlimited would pull their dollars elsewhere because it is in the best interest of the majority of people? If those two groups, Delta and Ducks pulled out because the majority of its members could not appreciate what they are paying for, where would your habitiat be?


It would be exactly like it is now.....Delta has no land here at all.They do research.And DU has a thimble full.They spend almost all of their money in Canada.Wouldn't even notice if both left here.Kind of shoots down your NR's save the state idea.Right now we are in the black because of oil.So go ahead and leave.


----------



## Codeman

I totally agree with the majority of these posts.

My dad grew up in south eastern ND. His uncle was a farmer and just recently died 5 years ago so all his land got sold. I have been hunting there with my dad since I was a little kid. I am 20 years old now. And we have seen it go from I would say 1/10 of the land being posted and having some of the best hunting to this year I would say 9/10 fields are posted. He knows a lot of the farmers down there and we have actually talked to some of them. And one of the farmers who owns a lot of land said that he posts his because people park on the approaches. He said he approaced game and fish and brought it up saying that it needs to be out there the reasons that people are posting their land so they can improve hunter farmer relations. He has approached them 3 times with nothing. He said he is sick of it because he can't get equipment in his field or out of his field and he has to drive further so he said until they do something he is posting all his land and noone is hunting it.

The other problem is some rich hunter that owns some company bought like 1/3 of the land where i hunt and made some hunting ranch.

I do also agree with you guys that it really sucks when you see a great field and your getting ready to hunt it and there were no posted signs at any corners then you get to some part of the field or 1 corner and a old sign with no name or address or number is there.

I think that the signs should have at least a name to give you a chance to track the land owner down. I know that this is getting bad. This year we were deer hunting spotted 2 deer on Plots land running and there were immediately 4 vehicles upon us everyone was out shooting becasue there was nowhere else to hunt. It is so bad that my dad and I who have deerhunted for 30 years with his time down there are giving up deer hunting.

Now I know that this is getting extreme but with the rise in the duck populations and snow geese so something needs to be done. I mean if hunters can't hunt their numbers are going to skyrocket until diesease and or starvation kicks in.


----------



## shadow

Let me see Ken, you mean to tell me DU doesnt have projects in ND? They do nothing as far as land, habitat, and predator control? I see projects scattered throughout the state. And yes Delta does research, to specifically impact the ducks. If you think ND is the same as it was 1, 2 or 10 years ago, thats insane!

Remember to tell all the people who have helped you through the years, not just in hunting, but other avenues, maybe thorugh legal, medical or social issues just to mention a few. In socities eyes, it all goes hand in hand, so yes, keep on kicking, send everyone away and you can have all the birds. That is unless, climate change pushes them out of ND and you have to go ask someone for a place to hunt.

So yes, you are write, keep kicking, sooner or later you and everyone else will need a helping hand, and when it gets stuck out for help, there just may be no one to grab it!


----------



## KEN W

I stand by what I said......I have nothing against either of them.They do good work.But almost all of it has been in Canada.The loss of CRP will be the downfall of waterfowl hunting.And neither DU or Delta can make a difference or stop it.


----------



## slough

So if ND restricts nonresidents Delta and DU aren't going to do any conservation work here huh? :lol: They do plenty in SD and I think they have about the most restrictive NR waterfowl regs in the country. Anyways, their work is a drop in bucket as far as the total amount of duck production in the state.

I don't see why some have such a hard time with the thought of limiting NR licenses. Most states do it with big game; if you don't draw a tag you don't hunt that year. Tags are limited to maintain a quality experience, can't see why this would be such a bad idea with waterfowl. I don't think it will kill the small-town economy that NRs always like to say they keep afloat.


----------



## Lqpvhonker

I never understand why farmers HATE ppl driving in their fields....does it really make a difference? Don't they drive there equipment all over it? And so what if hunting do...they just plow the **** out of it before they plant anyway....The real issue that will ruin ducking hunting in North Dakota and all states is the loss of native prarie....no nesting cover equals no ducks....and lets face it when north and south dakota face a drought its game over for the good years...everything will get tilled and drained and the stuff they couldn't plow under will get plowed....Instead of *****ing over NR and Resident BS figure out a way to keep farmers from destroying the landscape and be good stewards of the earth...It makes me sick everytime I see a ****ing truck with a role of tile on it.

LQPVhonker


----------



## Tmax-4-

agree 100% with LQPVhonker


----------



## shadow

I agree that loss of CRP will be horrible, and also would support limiting the number of tags, what number 20,000 seems fair, but how would that ease landowner relations? I like the zone system and would support something that would allow hunters, NR's or residents the opportunity to hunt on legally posted land for waterfowl hunting.

I would support a system where we paid an extra $10-12 dollars on the license to be used as follows: $5 for finding a company in the state to make a No Trespassing sign. The additional dollars would be distributed to the specific landowner who signs up for the program. Since the NR number is capped at 20,000, that alone would bring in $200,000 for this specific use. One thing I know, is that areas to hunt are getting less and less and with the loss of CRP, things are looking bleaker all the time.


----------



## Augusta

KEN W said:


> shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait, what would happen if someone like Delta Waterfowl or Ducks Unlimited would pull their dollars elsewhere because it is in the best interest of the majority of people? If those two groups, Delta and Ducks pulled out because the majority of its members could not appreciate what they are paying for, where would your habitiat be?
> 
> 
> 
> It would be exactly like it is now.....Delta has no land here at all.They do research.And DU has a thimble full.They spend almost all of their money in Canada.Wouldn't even notice if both left here.Kind of shoots down your NR's save the state idea.Right now we are in the black because of oil.So go ahead and leave.
Click to expand...

+1 Well said Ken.


----------



## Nick Roehl

KEN W said:


> shadow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wait, what would happen if someone like Delta Waterfowl or Ducks Unlimited would pull their dollars elsewhere because it is in the best interest of the majority of people? If those two groups, Delta and Ducks pulled out because the majority of its members could not appreciate what they are paying for, where would your habitiat be?
> 
> 
> 
> It would be exactly like it is now.....Delta has no land here at all.They do research.And DU has a thimble full.They spend almost all of their money in Canada.Wouldn't even notice if both left here.Kind of shoots down your NR's save the state idea.Right now we are in the black because of oil.So go ahead and leave.
Click to expand...

X100 to KEN

Shadow you are out of your mind. This is laughable. There are ducks here because of CRP and water. You have to love the disconnect there is between NR's and what is actually going on here. You just proved you know absolutely nothing about waterfowl in the Central Flyway by your statement. DU and Delta are good orgs but they are not determining factors in the duck factory here.


----------



## blhunter3

Lqpvhonker said:


> I never understand why farmers HATE ppl driving in their fields....does it really make a difference? Don't they drive there equipment all over it? And so what if hunting do...they just plow the &$#* out of it before they plant anyway.everything will get tilled and drained and the stuff they couldn't plow under will get plowed


The reason we do not want people driving in certain feilds is because many farmers in North Dakota practice minimum till or no till and extra driving around cause unnecessary soil compaction. The next reason is many people have planted winter wheat, canola, and alfafala and driving on it in the fall or spring will harm the crop. The last reason is poeple getting stuck or driving in low area's and leave ruts.

Not everything is getting tiled and drained. Yes many natural drainage ditches are getting cleaned this year. And there was also alot of sloughs being drained with approval of township, county, state, and federal approve to save roads.

You should probably do some research before you open your mouth.

If you do not approve of what we are doing to make a living, there is always land for sale..........


----------



## dakotashooter2

The loss of CRP will not be the death of waterfowl hunting in ND. We had pretty decent hunting before CRP and will have it after. Will it be the same as it is now ? NO. We have been pretty spoiled the last 10-15 years... Keep in mind that waterfowl numbers are at an all time high. Some of the numbers are even estimated to be higher than the early 1900s... before wetlands were being drained. The first few years of CRP loss are going to be the hardest on the birds mainly because predator numbers are out of control. But the predators are also losing cover with the loss of CRP making them more vulnerable to hunters. It will take a few years but things will balance out again. The biggest threat is going to be drought. As long as it is wet farmers are forced to leave some areas un-tilled leaving some nesting habitat. When it gets dry they till right up to the open water leaving no nesting habitat.

And don't fool yourself... When a majority of the CRP is lost, crop production will increase, prices will likely take a big dip and another farm/conservation program will emerge.


----------



## duckp

Well stated and dead on.


----------



## jpallen14

duckp said:


> Well stated and dead on.


Wow, who the heck wants to move backwards on conservation and wildlife populations in the Dakota's?? I think you guys are extremely optimistic on what resident waterfowl populations will be in 10 years. Especially in the eastern Dakotas!! What about the 100 of thousands of native grassland that has been converted the last couple of years in addition to the loss of CRP?


----------



## Nick Roehl

dakotashooter2 said:


> And don't fool yourself... When a majority of the CRP is lost, crop production will increase, prices will likely take a big dip and another farm/conservation program will emerge.


Really what did we have before CRP? Soil bank in the 40's-50's. Now with resilient crops you can grow most anywhere. I know they are growing soybeans in places you wouldn't have even thought of 20 years ago. I see drain tile going up farther and farther west out of the Red River Valley. 
Now with the government cutting all kinds of programs believe me any CRP programs will be in that list in the future. 
So who is fooling themselves here??


----------



## blhunter3

Funny how the liberals pushed ethanol as being green and that we have all of this idle land that no one is using and now CRP is on the chopping block. How green are the liberals?

I do not see the grain markets falling for awhile. We are feeding more and more people and there are more uses for the grains then there was. With a booming population people will need to eat.


----------



## Rick Acker

Pretty much going to Hell in a hand basket. If you do the math from the Soil bank era to the CRP era...That's a lot of lean years. Some of us will be rockin' out to Nelly on the oldies channel in the old folks home, before it changes again!


----------



## Mike J

blhunter3 said:


> Funny how the liberals pushed ethanol as being green and that we have all of this idle land that no one is using and now CRP is on the chopping block. How green are the liberals?
> 
> I do not see the grain markets falling for awhile. We are feeding more and more people and there are more uses for the grains then there was. With a booming population people will need to eat.


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was introduced in the house by Joe Barton (R-TX) and signed into law by president George W. Bush. One of the key components of the bill was establishing benchmarks for increased use of gallons of ethanol to be blended into gasoline.

I didn't know those guys were liberals.


----------



## KEN W

I would guess that every farmer planting corn must be a liberal then,since they are feeding this monster. :eyeroll:


----------



## blhunter3

No the farmers growing corn aren't all liberal, but why not take advantage of high prices? After all we are trying to make a living.

There are alot of people who helped ethanol along just to make money. Look at how many ethanol plants are in Texas and how much federal funding they recieved for them.


----------



## KEN W

So I guess it's OK to be a green liberal as long as it makes farmers money?


----------



## blhunter3

KEN W said:


> So I guess it's OK to be a green liberal as long as it makes farmers money?


No I'm just saying that because of the people who pushed ethanol from corn because ethanol is "green" and that there was a whole bunch of idle acres (CRP). If you had an oppertunity to make money you grow corn too.


----------



## blhunter3

I guess my point is that its funny that people want to save the earth are also the ones killing it at the same time. Ethanol from corn has reduced CRP acres. CRP is a hell of a lot more green then ethanol from corn. Considering how much fossil fuel products it uses.

On a side not its also ironic that people want to get rid of Roundup Ready crops but Roundup is on of the safest chemicals out there.


----------



## Mike J

blhunter3 said:


> There are alot of people who helped ethanol along just to make money. Look at how many ethanol plants are in Texas and how much federal funding they recieved for them.


You are correct. Those people are called, "farmers."

The pushing for ethanol in DC was universal regardless of party affiliation. Claiming it's the green liberals who pushed it is just as inaccurate as saying it was the conservative energy independence crowd preaching that it would unshackle us from foreign oil.

Here's the thing you're missing, where do you think all the rosy ethanol propaganda came from, and who spent millions padding politician's pockets and paying lobbyists? Big Ag. All that bipartisan support in Washington was based off of misleading reports and studies. They were able to convince Washington that by subsidizing a large scale ethanol program it would be beneficial on all fronts; energy independence, reducing emissions, etc. They sold them by lying and claiming that energy deficient corn based ethanol would be the same as Brazil's very successful sugar cane based ethanol, which has a 7-1 energy conversion. Meaning that it produces 7 times the energy used to make it. Corn ethanol has a ratio of 1.3-1, out of the plant. That doesn't count the energy used in growing the corn so it's actually a net loss of energy to make ethanol. Do you think Big Ag didn't know this?

If you've been watching the Republican primaries what very important state are they fighting over that also happens to be the leading corn and ethanol producer in the country? I wonder how many of them are preaching about how terrible ethanol is as they campaign across Iowa?

I won't go as far as saying you're the one who pushed it being that you are a ND farmer so you really didn't. I think ND farmers are some of the best people in the world. I mean that sincerely. You do need to get your facts straight. Corn state farmers are a very different breed that I'm not fond of. They have no respect for the land or any wildlife. It's all about making a quick buck for them.


----------



## wingaddict

blhunter3 said:


> I guess my point is that its funny that people want to save the earth are also the ones killing it at the same time. Ethanol from corn has reduced CRP acres. CRP is a hell of a lot more green then ethanol from corn. Considering how much fossil fuel products it uses.
> 
> On a side not its also ironic that people want to get rid of Roundup Ready crops but Roundup is on of the safest chemicals out there.


I'd love to hear more of your "safe chemical" logic. :lol: Saying round up is one of the safest "safest chemicals out there" is like saying marijuana is one of the safest drugs.


----------



## dakotashooter2

While many of the newest inovations and farm practices "appear" to be good and benificial I think time is going to prove that different. I suspect that tiling is going to lead to the eventual need for irrigation on those same lands.

Many of the medicines which we have been using for years and thought to be safe are now being discovered to have long term detrimental effects. Farm chemicals while reasonably safe will likely follow suit in either their detrimental effects on us and/or the land. I still stand fast on the thought that you can only push the land so far before you damage it to the point that it will take years to recover. We just have not discovered what that point is yet. At some point nature, in a larger scale, will remind farmers who is in control.


----------



## blhunter3

wingaddict said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my point is that its funny that people want to save the earth are also the ones killing it at the same time. Ethanol from corn has reduced CRP acres. CRP is a hell of a lot more green then ethanol from corn. Considering how much fossil fuel products it uses.
> 
> On a side not its also ironic that people want to get rid of Roundup Ready crops but Roundup is on of the safest chemicals out there.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd love to hear more of your "safe chemical" logic. :lol: Saying round up is one of the safest "safest chemicals out there" is like saying marijuana is one of the safest drugs.
Click to expand...

Safe on the ground, it breaks down fast. It takes alot when ingested to kill a person.


----------



## northdakotakid

The future of North Dakota is to limit the access to areas ...

(1) Create hunting zones that make sense... anyone who has hunted here for more than a few years knows the traditional areas where the birds concentrate and of course where the hunters concentrate.

(2) Continue to fund the PLOTS program and determine a way to provide incentives to increase the habitat value of the land. Obviously if there are landowners out there willing to allow access (and negate legal liability) to their land there is a population among those that would be open to being compensated to improve habitat but you can't require all PLOTS landowners to do so.

It has become increasingly obvious that owning land, including the rights that come with it, has become the most consistent way to have quality outings. I am not trying to explain what all people conbsider a quality outing but we can assume that it includes the opportunity to take birds. It is no longer a guarantee that if you have a relative with land that you necessarily will have an opportunity to hunt it. Throw in land prices... recent auctioned land in a prime waterfowl area fetched $1700 acre for tillable and $800 for pasture and you have yourself a problem.


----------

