# PLOTS?



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

i'm not trying to complain, but i was hunting in logan county this weekend
and i found alot of plots land that was hayed right down to the nuts. One plots was pasture land and one was even plowed up to black dirt. is this what is happening now? i understand that things change as a result of drought, etc. but if we are allowing plots to be hayed, tilled, pastured, etc. then that seems to be contradictory to what plots was meant to accomplish in the first place. like i said i don't want this to be complaining, because i appreciate the plots program, but i don't want the plots to be taken advantage of.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

It is my understanding that all PLOTS is not equal. Some is set up for agricultural use, some for haying, some to be grazed. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the PLOTS program ins and outs could shed some light on this for us. I have never understood the logic of allowing grazing on PLOTS myself, and would like an explanation. Of course something is better than nothing, but I have never seen pheasants that would stay around where cattle are grazing. Burl


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

My personal favorites are the summer fallow PLOTS. :eyeroll: I've seen more than one of these this year. 
I think PLOTS is a good program. But, I also think the GNF is focusing too much on the goal of a million acres in the program. I would like to see them look more towards quality habitat, not just quantity.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I've seen a number of these questionable PLOTS this year........MAYBE there are other reasons behind them.

Maybe the GNF had to rent one area to get another....maybe the bad area will be good next year.

Maybe the goal of 1,000,000 acres is good in that many in the agricultural community will start thinking that the GNF department is really trying to work with them on conservation issues. We're going to need some good stewards of the land when the CRP program starts to transition out in 2007.

In fact, here's an idea for that time. Maybe those producers that have had PLOTS contracts could be contracted to leave strips of CRP between btween fields by the GNF as well as Cattail sloughs. GNF might be able to offer more $$$s for these strip/slough areas as they wouldn't be paying for the entire acreage. Just an idea.....maybe they have already considered this idea.


----------



## DonC (Oct 9, 2005)

Sent this msg to Fish and Game maybe they can shed some light on this subject.........

Saw this on a hunting forum. Would someone from your department care to comment ??? thanks in advance
Don Cogger

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... hp?t=19101


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Please read your plots guide, It spells out the different programs

Here is a link to the information.

http://www.nd.gov/gnf/info/plots-maps/news-changes.pdf

Bob


----------



## Kevink (Oct 25, 2005)

Sorry for the length of this reponse, but this is a complex issue. Let me begin by giving you some general information about the PLOTS program. First, under the PLOTS umbrella, there are eight separate programs, all with their own specific criteria, agreement length, eligibility and criteria. The reason for having these different programs is simply to provide landowners with a variety of options when making decisions on their land. Landowners are the key to PLOTS and their must be flexibility in the program. Some PLOTS programs, such as our Habitat PLOT program, offer higher payments if a landowner retires and protects existing habitat or creates new habitat and sets it aside for a period of time. Other programs, such as our Working Lands PLOTS program, rewards landowners for activities and resources that have a positive impact on wildlife habitat on lands actively being farmed or ranched (such as not haying or grazing wetlands or brushy hillsides; using no-till farming vs. conventional fall tillage or using a prescribed grazing system vs. a season long grazing system). Some programs are short-term agreements, while others are long-term easements. Some program payments are annual, while others are paid upfront. Some programs require the land to be set aside, or idled, while other programs are designed to fit into the landowner's active farming operation. The Department's PLOTS program offers a variety of options and payments for the landowner.
Now that I have given you some general information, I would like to address the concerns that people have regarding grazed, fallowed, hayed etc... PLOTS tracts. There are a few explanations for these situations, let me give you an example. The land may be enrolled in the Working Lands program. In the Working Lands program, a landowner may offer land, which is actively being farmed or ranched; however, it must meet certain criteria to be eligible. The land is evaluated as a whole. What that means is a landowner may have many different tracts of land but the Department evaluates all of those tracts as one. For example, if a landowner offers two quarters of land, a biologist will evaluate both quarters at the same time. If one quarter has good habitat and the other quarter had little or no habitat, the bulk of the landowner's payment will come from the quarter with the good habitat. Often times, the quarter with little or no habitat will not even be accepted into the program, or if it is accepted, the landowner will be required to create or enhance wildlife habitat on the quarter to be eligible for the program. (It could also be that a Department biologist, who signed up the land, is in the process of working with the landowner to enhance the quarter with little or no habitat, so in a year or so, the area may have some very nice habitat on it.) Over the past two years, we have adjusted the Working Lands program payment structure to eliminate or reduce the amount of acres with little or no habitat and to increase areas with more habitat. PLOTS agreements that were in effect prior to these changes will be re-evaluated at the end of their two-year term (April 2006 is the end of the term for many of these agreements) and those with little or no habitat will most likely not be renewed. It is simply the nature of the beast when dealing with changing farming practices, farm bills, and new programs-things change and the PLOTS program is very dynamic and has seen changes in the past and will see changes in the future.
Another example is the land could be enrolled in one of our other programs such as Habitat Plot program or the CRP Cost-share program, and the acres you have described are "throw-in" acres, which are part of the PLOTS agreement, but the landowner is not receiving compensation for them. In some cases, the Department may have a small piece of isolated habitat (eg.cattail sloughs) within a quarter section under agreement with the landowner, but we require the landowner to "throw-in" the remainder of the quarter section to square off the PLOTS boundary. It would be impractical for the Department to place PLOTS signs around small, isolated tracts of habitat, and it is much easier for hunters to know where the PLOTS boundary is if the area is squared out. Some "throw-in" acres consist of cropland, but keep in mind, the Department (hunter dollars) is paying little or nothing for these acres.
Finally, the last explanation is the landowner could simply be out of compliance with the PLOTS agreement. Occasionally, we do have landowners who do not comply with their agreement. We try to limit this as much as possible, for example, by paying the landowner at the end of the year, to ensure the habitat is left throughout the summer and fall. Sometimes, a landowner will let us know ahead of time they have to make a change in their farming practice and their PLOTS agreement. Because they let us know about the changes ahead of time, we do not consider this a violation of the PLOTS agreement. If this becomes a reoccurring event each year, we will not renew the landowner's agreement. 
PLOTS is an ever-changing program. The Department tries to stay ahead of changing Farm Bills, farming practices and many other factors that influence habitat on private lands. Often times, the cover on a particular PLOTS tract one year may look terrible simply because of the weather, even when the landowner has done everything right. The Department is always adjusting the PLOTS program and making changes to ensure there is quality habitat on these tracts. 
Thanks for the discussion, glad to see that people are paying attention out there. NDGFD always likes to hear from the hunters, afterall, they are paying for the PLOTS. We will continue to adjust the PLOTS program when necessary to meet the needs of our hunters. If anyone has any concerns or comments and would like to contact me directly, feel free to email me at [email protected] or better yet, give me a call and we can discuss things. My number is 701-328-6371.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Thanks Kevin. That clears up alot of my questions!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Thanks Kevin that is some excellent insight!


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

wow, thanks for the clarification. i want to thank landowners who participate in the plots program. it has been a great program.

kevin, do you feel that the amount of PLOTS land will increase as
CRP is phased out and do you think some of the dollars used for CRP now may be transfered to programs like PLOTS in the future?

also, is there any discussion regarding guides/outfitters hunting or guiding on PLOTS land? this could be a rumor but i have heard of outfitters "holding" PLOTS by having an employee get to a PLOTS early in the morning and then running their customers through the PLOTS and saving their own land.


----------



## Kevink (Oct 25, 2005)

First of all, we don't really know what the future holds for CRP so we can't really say that it is going to be phased out. No doubt, changes are on the horizon for CRP and we're trying to stay on top of those changes and adjust our PLOTS program as necessary. To put things in perspective, if CRP was gone tomorrow, we would lose over 50% of the PLOTS tracts in the state-maybe even more, because the habiat base would be gone. CRP and PLOTS are not one in the same so don't get confused. USDA administers CRP and they have nothing to do with PLOTS and vice-versa, NDGFD has nothing to do with the USDA CRP program other than the fact that we accept CRP land into PLOTS. CRP is a huge part of wildlife habiat for ND. Currently ND has 3.3 million acres and 1.7 million acres of that are set to expire in 2007. (NDGFD has about 270, 000 acres of CRP in PLOTS.) To answer your question, no, there will be no way that CRP dollars will be "transferred" to PLOTS. PLOTS is funded with the sales of habitat stamps, interest from the NDGFD general fund and special legislative appropriations. There is federal legislation in the works right now called "Open Fields" that will give federal dollars to states to administer programs such as PLOTS, but the bill has not been approved yet. Hunter license sales affect PLOTS more than anything and if half of our CRP habitat base in the state disappears in 2007, with the 1.7 million acres expiring, perhaps hunter numbers will decline and PLOTS will see a decrease in funding. Either way, CRP is essential to wildlife habitat in ND and we hate to lose it. As for guides and outfitters on PLOTS-it is illegal to guide on PLOTS, if you hear of that happening let someone at NDGFD know about it. CRP needs support right now, there is a comment period going on until Dec. 31. If you would like to submit a comment, you can do so on the USDA web page (http://www.usda.gov) or by mailing you comments to:

Secretary Mike Johanns
Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, DC 20250

In addition, contact your state congressional leaders and let them know how important CRP is to North Dakota.

Sen. Kent Conrad Sen. Byron L. Dorgan	Earl Pomeroy
Ph: 202-224-2043	Ph: 202-225-2611	Ph: 202-224-2551	
Fax: 202-224-7776 Fax: 202-226-0893	Fax: 202-224-1193

http://conrad.senate.gov 
http://dorgan.senate.gov 
www.pomeroy.house.gov

Thanks. Kevin Kading-PLI Coordinator


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Kevin,

Once again, great info. Thanks much!


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Thank you Kevin. Having things explained so well casts a different light on much of the program. Keep up the good work. Burl


----------



## faithsdave (Jan 8, 2004)

Thanks Kev. :beer:


----------

