# More people against Hunting and Wildlife



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Wow some people should just not talk. This guy sounds like one of the dumbest humans on earth. He completely contradicts everything he says.
http://www.kxmb.com/video.asp?ArticleId ... eoId=28084
And ND wonders why there is so much out migration. :eyeroll:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Nothing like putting a black eye on all farmers/landowners. :eyeroll:


----------



## hammerhead (Dec 22, 2004)

So which one of these guys is the dumbest person on earth the guy from DU or the guy from the farm bureau?


----------



## hammerhead (Dec 22, 2004)

blhunter3 said:


> Nothing like putting a black eye on all farmers/landowners. :eyeroll:


 How is this giving all farmers and landowners a black eye. Sounds to me that it is not their decision to make who gets to buy the land, it's up to the Governor.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So let me get this straight. The guy says land like that will stay in pasture or hay anyway so why should Ducks Unlimited have it? Then he says that if Ducks Unlimited gets it they will take an easement on it, sell it, and the next owner will be stuck with that easement. Well, if the land is always going to be pasture or hay why would he care. Also, no one has a gun to the new owners head. If they ask $500 acre and he doesn't like it don't pay the $500 an acre. If he pays the $500 and acre, then it must be worth it right? I think that Farm Bureau guy simply doesn't know how to engage the gray matter.

I would think that the North Dakota law on land buying would be unconstitutional. If I had land and Ducks Unlimited was willing to pay $100 an acre more than anyone else and the governor vetoed the sale I would be ticked. Someone needs to sue if they loose substantial money over a sale. Odd you don't hear them complain about landowners rights. Should they not have the right to sell to who ever they want? Funny how that works. I think the farmer dominated legislature figured a way to keep land cheap for themselves.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

hammerhead said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing like putting a black eye on all farmers/landowners. :eyeroll:
> ...


He is showing the pure greed of some the farmers. There are alot of farmer's with the "if I can't farm it, by god no one is going to get any use of it then" mentality. :eyeroll:


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

blhunter3 said:


> hammerhead said:
> 
> 
> > blhunter3 said:
> ...


Where you refering to gst? oke:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Here's a question for anyone to answer. How much land do you feel is needed for wildlife habitat or conservation in the state of ND? Please list your answer in acres.


----------



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

Ron Gilmore said:


> blhunter3 said:
> 
> 
> > hammerhead said:
> ...


One has to wonder if GST is indeed Brian Kraemer himself...

The pattern fits...


----------



## Bustem36 (Feb 5, 2008)

It really doesn't matter how much land is for the wildlife and/or farming a landowner should be able to sell the property to whoever they want to. The farm bureau guy complains that the next owner will be stuck with an easement...hmmmm then the next potential purchaser of the land will have to make that choice. It's not like the next buyer is going to buy the property then they spring it on them that they can't do this or that.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

gst said:


> Here's a question for anyone to answer. How much land do you feel is needed for wildlife habitat or conservation in the state of ND? Please list your answer in acres.


gst,

How much land do you feel is needed for ag purposes in the state of ND? Please list your answer in acres.

:lol:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

This is a question I have been asking the Farm Bureau and their spin off LAND for 20 years. How can you oppose land sales or easements between a willing seller (the land owner) and a willing buyer when your websites, written documentation, public pronouncements and testimony before legislative committees argue in favor of private property rights? During one of my trips to see legislative committees in action some years ago, I watched the lobbyist for the Farm Bureau testify in one committee on behalf of private property rights, go down the hall, and testify against giving the landowner the right to sell an easement (not wildlife related) for their property, all within a half an hour. That, to me, is the classic hypocrisy and why I have since then viewed any of their proposals regarding private property rights with suspicion.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

There are more than one example where govt controls what is done with private property up to and including taking it for the "good" of society. Everyone here gets up in arms over this particular one because it involves wildlife. So if we are going to discuss government involvement in this situation limiting a wildlife habitat land purchase, at some point the number of acres needed for wildlife habitat and production must come into this discussion. I'm simply asking for peoples opinion to this amount because I don't think alot of people realize how much there is in this state.

If people would rather make assumptions about the"greed" and attitudes of someone they have never met or know nothing of their commitment they have to wildlife conservation in thir own operation. I guess thats their choice. The comments about the "pure greed of some of the farmers" and "if I can't farm it, by god no one is going to get any use of it then" mentality" are perfect examples of what I have said in many posts about the attitudes and comments that are made on this site that do nothing to help the rest of the sportsmen trying to develope relationships with landowners. Of course there are some farmers just like some businessmen in town that have this attitude, but for everyone that does there are many of us that quietly manage our operations including wildlife habitat and conservation in our practices, because we are sportsmen ourselves and realize the value of this.

As to how much land is required for ag in ND? How much do you want to have to pay for your food you eat? Or where do you want your food to come from? Of course 300 or 600 acres won't matter in and of it's self, but as part of a much larger growing total? So where do you say enough is enough?

As to an org. testifying on behalf of property rights, not all private property rights issues equate the same, so their effect on society and communities and individuals they are representing are taken into consideration when these orgs. develope policy relating to these issues. Is it a surprise that and ag org. gives a greater weight to ag production land use while a wildlife org gives a greater weight to wildlife production use? Where these differences of property use occur some level or form of govt typically becomes involved, much like a zoning board placing limits on what can be done with private property.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

gst, i respectfully disagree. As I pointed out in my previous post, the ag organization in question has stated flatly that they support private property rights and a farmer's right to do anything they want with their land. No qualifiers, no quibbling, no exceptions, to them all property rights are the same.Their statements on property rights are unequivocal. At the same time, they oppose letting a landowner sell either the property or an easement. They have never answered and continue to refuse to answer repeated calls or questions to explain these completely illogical and diametrically opposed policies. In testimony after testimony, whether ag related or not, they support private property rights unless it is some willing farmer wanting to sell to a willing buyer.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> Here's a question for anyone to answer. How much land do you feel is needed for wildlife habitat or conservation in the state of ND? Please list your answer in acres.


Actually I like conservation programs, and would like to see something like CRP rotated every ten years on land. It gives the farmer and income, saves and builds topsoil for future farmers, and provides habitat and hunting opportunities.

I think the number of acres needs to remain flexible with populations of people. Maybe more land will need to be farmed if more food is needed. Maybe less land would need to be farmed to keep prices up in the free market.

If I could choose right now. Lets see North Dakota is 70,000 square miles. A very small amount should be preserved as long as we possibly can so that our children and their great grandchildren will always be able to see what the natural earth looked like. So let say 1 percent that would be only 700 square miles, or 448,000 acres. I think our parks we currently have would be a big part of that. We are about the lowest in the nation for government land, and I would like to see that increased to maybe 10%. That would be well below the average for the nation. I think it ranges from us as a low somewhere under 5% to as high as some states with 85% federal land. I know Arizona, Nevada, Alaska are all very high percentages of federal land.

Ten percent would be 7000 square miles or 4, 480,000 acres. I know that sounds like a lot, but percentage wise it isn't.

In the past we allowed each county to have up to 25% into CRP. I would like to see a comparable program put into place. Totally volunteer of course. Since surplus grain always keeps prices down this would give farmers who participated an income from their land while conserving and building top soil for future farmers. It would also provide habitat and hunting opportunities. Of course the next program I would like to see open for hunting and not posted. Still volunteer of course, but take it or leave it.

I would like to see payments for the conservation program on a sliding scale where they were paid more for each five years that they participated. They free market should take care of things, but adjustments may need to be made depending on the nations population and demand for food.

Please keep in mind I only give this a minute or two of thought. You wanted an estimate in acres and I have only given you a SWAG, but it's perhaps a start for people to give it a little more thought.

To keep everything fair what do you think the landowners north of Devils Lake who are draining their wetlands should pay in damages? I think they should look at the cost of that dike, and pay for it in full by acres of wetlands drained. After all we should all be responsible for our actions. Next it will overflow and hit Valley City and Fargo and????? Maybe a wetlands conservation program is badly needed north of Devils Lake.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Both sides on this are wrong.

DU should be going after land that is not good pasture or production land. Examples would be high alkali, rocky soil, bad drainage, etc. DU has construction crews to reclaim the land however they want.

If farmers are/were more aware of conservation and access issues there would be less of a need and probably less interest in certain areas. Examples would be wetlands draining and shelterbelt removal.

The governor is in a lose/lose situation, and as usual he will do nothing in the form of mediation, therefore it will get worse. If the farmer's groups and wildlife groups don't get together soon this will keep going on. In the end the average farmer and the average hunter will lose. Land prices could be driven up and posting could get worse, that is if you are in area that is not already posted up.

Both groups have their heads, starting with their lips so far up their ***** that oxygen is not reaching their brains.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> DU should be going after land that is not good pasture or production land. Examples would be high alkali, rocky soil, bad drainage, etc. DU has construction crews to reclaim the land however they want.


DU doesnt go for any good production land. And why shouldnt the go for pasture. They are not taking anything out of production. They are conserving what pasture is left. They are 100% for managed grazing. Cattle farms should love DU. By placing easements on grass lands they are keeping the cost of pasture rental down. They are keeping the future cattle farmers in business.

Thats what makes this guy sound so dumb. He says if a private individual buys the land he will keep the local economy alive by purchasing fence and salt blocks. Then he goes on saying that raising a duck will not help the economy at all. First of all that land will be rented to a local farmer so the fence will still need to be repaired and salt blocks will need to be purchased. But now that land is opened to public hunting so people will have to buy ammo decoys gas snacks and breakfast at the local cafe. Point being if he wants to talk economics DU will possibly boost the local economics. One thing is for sure they wont hurt it.

On another side note for you TK the land they wanted to purchase by tuttle was crap land for farming. That land was in CRP because it wasnt worth farming. DU would of purchased the land taken it out of CRP fenced and then they would of put it back into production by grazing it. The Farm Bureau is the one keeping that land out of production.

DU has long been a supporter of keeping produtive land in production and keeping unproductive land in production through grazing or haying.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I don't buy that all of their purchases have been crap land. If that was the case there wouldn't be the controversy. They have stepped on a few toes which will happen but there have been times when they were wrong. Either way these continuous pissing matches don't help anything or anyone.

Just like the NRA, I have issues with DU and PF, it doesn't mean that I don't support their causes. I just think they need to do a little more research or maybe just PR work.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Just because land is in CRP does not mean it is "crap land" and not suitable for farming, particularily with the changes in notill farming. And there is no guarantee that this land will remain in production if DU purchases it. There is a portion of people in DU that realize the value of production (grazing) on the land, a majority of duck production happens on privately owned grazed lands as was determined by one of their own studies. However there is also a portion of people in DU that simply want the prarie pothole region to return to the untouched native grasslands it was previously. DU is concerned about wildlife and recreation, Ag groups are concerned about the future of ag and the people and communities that make their living from it. Most ag groups have a very difficult time with this issue as property rights are the foundation on which many were founded. If all the groups involved were willing to change their positions from an all or nothing stance perhaps something could be accomplished. But even in this last meeting of the Natural Lands Aquisition group, DU was unwilling to compromise in the area of long term easements. Is anyone aware of the issues MT is facing with the RMEF and lands they have purchased being taken of the tax base due to a loophole that was found?

Since no one seems willing to answer my question regarding how many acres are enough, I'll share some information I have found. Some came from a NDG&F document Bob Kellum shared with me and another comes from a park and rec nd govt. planning document I found while googling total acres of wetlands in ND. 
There are roughly 45 million total acres in ND.
There are roughly 1 million privately owned plots acres open to public hunting.
There are roughly 3 million acres of national and state owned lands of which approximately 2 million are open to public hunting. ND has 63 NWRs, more than any other state totaling over a half a million acres.
There are roughly 4 million acres of wetlands in ND of which 3 million are privately owned. 
There is roughly 2 million acres of privately owned lands in shelterbelt, forrest lands, habitat and conservation easements.
If you add these acres up, there are roughly 10 million acres of land and wetlands or roughly 22% of all acres in ND avalible for wildlife habitat and production in ND of which over one third or 3 million acres are open to public hunting. 
Add on the other conservation program acres(CRP,WRP,EQUIP) and this figure grows to well over 25% of the total acres in ND. Combine this with the millions of acres of other privately owned farm and ranch lands that remain open to public hunting, and provide wildlife habitat and production and I again ask how much is enough?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

TK33 said:


> They have stepped on a few toes which will happen but there have been times when they were wrong.


DU has stepped on quite a few toes over the years.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> and I again ask how much is enough?


Million Dollar Question. The generic answer would be enough to sustain healthy populations in any condition I suppose. I don't think wildlife groups should stop development, I think they need to stop being at odds with production. Right now groups like NDFU have no alternative either. Habitat development is going to continue and so is agriculture so this will never end. In the valley and western MN we could use more habitat and wetlands but I don't think DU has anything going on here. Now would be the time to focus on this area but I think land prices might have them looking elsewhere.


----------



## Decoyer (Mar 2, 2002)

What I want to know, is what legal right does the farm bureau have to tell a PRIVATE landowner who he can and can't sell HIS land to? Last I checked we aren't in a socialistic economy.

I agree with the post above, stating that if a future tenant doesn't want to buy the land with an easement he doesn't have to. What a bunch of BS.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> What I want to know, is what legal right does the farm bureau have to tell a PRIVATE landowner who he can and can't sell HIS land to? Last I checked we aren't in a socialistic economy.


Thats funny that you point that out. For a state that is constantly votes red for a federal government it has one of the most socialist / communist state run governments in the country as far as the economy goes. I guess the main reason this ****** me off is I am Sick of the government controlling everything we do. Who cares who the land is sold too. If DU wants to buy it let am buy it.

GST to answer your acres question. All land under a soil rating of 60% or a slope of D should be put back into pasture. Its is completely ridicules that my tax dollars go towards subsidizing a farmer for even trying to farm that. And as far as that tuttle land goes I Know it was crap I did a soil check on it a few years back and its on the south side of Alkali Lake. Think about it I shouldnt have to explain that one.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK, it appears from wildlife numbers we have had a quite healthy population of most everything for a number of years, so does that mean we have enough? And before anyone comments on the rough winter and bird numbers for pheasants, remember these are non native birds.

decoyer, What has to be remembered here is neither FB or any of the other orgs. or agencies on this committee are "telling" anyone what legally can or can't happen with their land. They are simply making a recomendation on which the Governor(govt) makes a ruling. This is not much different than a zoning board in city govt limiting what can be developed, sold, built, improved ect... on private property.

FBS as a rancher, I have no problem with lands remaining in grass or less govt involvement in our lives. But if you are tired of govt telling us what to do, who is going to say what lands can be farmed or which must be grass. Sounds like more govt telling more people what to do once again. In regards to the land at Tuttle. I'll take your word what it is. however there are many acres enrolled in CRP that are very productive lands given notill farming, which is another practice DU pays producers for in Canada. As to the acres question, Plainsman is the only one that has come close to addressing it.

Instead of insisting on permenant easements, why isn't DU working with agencies like the NRCS to develope or expand conservational grazing programs like what they already have in their EQUIP programs to work with producers rather than be at odds? They have already determined the value of grazing on duck nesting!!?? If DU took the monies they were going to spend on buying land and put it into one of these programs, they would get far more bang for their buck, in numbers of acres raising ducks.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> TK, it appears from wildlife numbers we have had a quite healthy population of most everything for a number of years, so does that mean we have enough? And before anyone comments on the rough winter and bird numbers for pheasants, remember these are non native birds.


Deer numbers are down in the SE and I have heard that the pheasant numbers are down in the SW. The pheasant numbers being down after the winter will make many feel that there is not enough cover. It never ceases to amaze me what pheasants can survive and what kills them. The non native part is what fuels some of the fire for more habitat. They need habitat to survive the winters. I am guessing that you are thinking there is enough habitat in NC and NW parts of ND. I don't think there are enough wetlands in the valley. There has been some talk that bringing back wetlands is part of long term flood prevention here. Ron Gilmore would know more about that than I.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Man o man is this a nit pickity topic.... I could use 5 more deer here and two more pheasant over there.. oh my the water goes up and down what should we do... :lol:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

If we use wildlife numbers to determine how much habitat is needed, what numbers are we going to use, historic levels, estimated carrying capacity, hunter opportunity expectation levels? Deer levels may be down from our historic highs, but are still over what the G&F feel appropriate. If pheasants in the SW couldn't make it thru the winter with all the land being dedicated to habitat and hunting just them in this area in particular, will any amount more habitat make the difference for this non native species? This raises the fact that even before the tall and short grass praries of ND sucumbed to the production practices of the "greedy" farmer and rancher and was 100 % in "habitat", Mother Nature still caused wildlife numbers to ebb and flow from highs to lows. So simply having more habitat is no guarantee of what some call adequete population levels. In many species we have seen numbers increased far beyond what once inhabited these "native" praries.

What we are faced with is reality of a balancing act between lands which are required to be in production to feed the world(ND leads the nation and world in production of many commodities) and the recreational opportunities some in society want, as well as preserving aspects and examples of nature in it's original form thru conservation practices for future generations. The Ag community has realized this need and is changing our production practices from the plow and black soil to ones of conservation tillage and no till plantings. Our industry as well as nature has benefited. We are using more and more conservation practices in our ranching operations as producers realize the value they provide not just for our animals, but wildlife as well. And yet regardless of all the changes we implement there are some in the wildlife arena that are still not willing to realize this and become a part of working together to even further this, but rather resort to hardline positions and the use of the courts and govt to attempt to regulate to achieve their goals and agendas. Unfortunately this puts groups representing ag industries and communities in a difficult position where we realize these groups are not willing to accept what we are doing ourselves and compromise to work togeher, and as a result these standoffs become the norm. Perhaps the way to achieve habitat protection and improvements is to encourage these wildlife orgs to work with ag creating open dialogue as to what will work for both sides in these areas.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Perhaps the way to achieve habitat protection and improvements is to encourage these wildlife orgs to work with ag creating open dialogue as to what will work for both sides in these areas.


That's what I said earlier, the best method would be for the governor's office to mediate, or should I say force them to work together.


----------



## rowdie (Jan 19, 2005)

All this over 320 ACRES?!


----------



## Conservit (Mar 25, 2009)

rowdie said:


> All this over 320 ACRES?!


This particular piece of land is only 321 acres, but there is much more at stake in the big picture.

gst asked the question about how much land in conservation is enough?The answer really depends on who you ask. For some it will never be enough...for others it is already too much.

IMHO I think if there were less wetlands being drained in the name of farming...there would be more support for the farm lobby.

Well ...gotta go pick up some mineral blocks for the deer, and lumber to build a deer blind. 8)


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

If anyone thinks farmers can simply go out and start draining any or every wetland they want, that's simply not the case. There are "swampbuster" regulations that prevent that from happening. Plainsman I realized you had asked a question about what's happening by DL. I really have very little knowledge of what is actually taking place there so I can't really comment on it.

I'm fairly surprised given the comments I've read on this site from several people in the past regarding habitat and conservation that there wasn't more people other than Plainsman and TK that responded to the question I asked about how many acres were enough.


----------

