# Conrad's new Open Fields plan



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Check out the article from today's Bismarck Trib. There is also a thread on this subject on the open forum. This sounds like a great idea to me. If I understand this right, this is essentially a PLOTS program at the federal level. The article is below.

Conrad plan to open up land
By TONY SPILDE, Bismarck Tribune

It was easy to get the point Thursday morning, standing under the autumn sun on a farm east of Bismarck, the trees along Apple Creek slowly shedding their golden leaves.

We've got a beautiful state here, and people ought to see more of it.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., used the Doug and Cheryl Boehm farm along Highway 10 to introduce his plan to open more of the state's private acreage for nature-related activities. Conrad calls the bill "Open Fields" and will present it to Congress next week.

The idea is to provide per-acre payments to landowners who voluntarily agree to open their land to hunting, fishing, birding and the like. The bill's official name is the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program of 2003. It would pay an annual share of $50 million in federal money to cooperating states, with each state and its landowners setting the parameters of the agreement.

Conrad said the money could be used to supplement current programs, such as the state's Private Land Open to Sportsmen effort, or could fund new programs tailored to this initiative.

Officials from the state Game and Fish Department, North Dakota Farm Bureau, North Dakota Farmers Union, Pheasants Forever and other agencies spoke Thursday in favor of the bill.

"This is a win-win-win situation," Conrad said. "Farmers and ranchers who voluntarily enroll their land would get an incentive payment. It will mean more land is available so that more people can hunt and enjoy the outdoors in North Dakota, and it will give our rural communities a real economic shot in the arm."

States -- not the federal government -- would work with landowners to structure the voluntary programs. Doug Goehring, representing the state Farm Bureau, said that was an important fact for his membership.

Land enrolled in the programs must have appropriate habitat, as determined by each state, but after an agreement was struck no habitat enhancement would have to take place.

Also, contract negotiations would take place between the landowner and the state. Goehring said that would mean shorter-term agreements than the lengthy ones typically associated with the Conservation Reserve Program.

In the end, the senator said, the resident versus non-resident hunting debate in this state comes down to demand exceeding supply. "Open Fields" should help that, he said.

"The (current) supply of space doesn't meet demand," Conrad said. "People have a hunger for nature. As they lead more-and-more urban lives, they have a desire to get back to the land."

Keith Trego, director of the North Dakota Natural Resources Trust, said Conrad's plan was a good one.

"It complements what we have in North Dakota," Trego said. "People with means will always find a place to hunt. This will provide something for the average sportsman."


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I am guessing what it would do is pump federal dollars into state access programs, or that is what I am hearing.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Sounds good, But one question. For waterfowl hunters like me, does barley stubble constitute suitable habitat?  I would like to see a plan that incorporates public access to harvested cereal crops as well as crp and wetlands. But overall, this sounds like a step in the right direction!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I can hear the non-res screaming already.........

Give more money to ND and then keep us from hunting there?????????


----------



## stevepike (Sep 14, 2002)

dblkluk,
I agree. I have always thought they should get more land that has grain crops into plots. Especially areas that are know for waterfowl feeding there. If there are some sloughs, fencelines or any other cover out there they can also hold upland birds. 
I have shot alot of pheasants out of barley stubble (but it would really help us waterfowl hunters)
:beer:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

This looks really good for uplanders and deer hunters, but unless I'm missing something it will not do jack for hardcore waterfowlers.

If the land has major water on it it would benefit the waterfowler for a short term, shoot it once or twice and it is over.

Sorry to be so skeptical but unless I am enlightened to the fact that it will benefit residents as a whole, they will have to show me the money. Too many resident hunting Moms and Pops with kids being left behind in the scheme of things in the ND outdoor world.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I don't know that I am a real big fan of our boys in D.C., but I give them my support. I think this law would be a great building block, as long it is maintained. We need to be sure our voices are heard on this one, let Conrad and Dorgan know that we need tilled fields to be involved in this as well. Waterfowl hunting is the crux of the whole access problem, and once access is limited, then it does become a resident/nr issue. I welcome "HUNTERS" to our great state, shooters can stay at home as far as I am concerned. If we let them know that the tilled field aspect of this program needs just as much light as the prairie grasslands end, we will be taking a giant step in the right direction. This sends a signal to me that someone is on our sides (landowners and hunters), and they are aware of the dilema with all this land being leased up by special interests who only want to profit from a great state heritage. Email them, send them letter and call them. Do one of each, that way they are sure to get your message and they will realize how many problems a plan like this can solve in our state, if done accordingly. 
:sniper:


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Damn right Ken. If the ND PLOTS becomes funded through Fed money then the one week res only rule has to go.

I would say run it like the Fed Hwy program. Matching funds to those that play by the Fed's rules none for those that do not. Access to NRs would be a good one rule to enforce.

I am also not so sure that TSODAK is correct about Feds supporting state run programs. I guess it depends upon whether the USF&WS becomes involved or if it just Dept of Ag.

The Feds and ND game and fish may get along, but power is power and I would speculate that the USF&WS will want to run this program with their people, their money, their signs, etc...


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Until you LIVE HERE, PAY TAXES HERE, and VOTE HERE, you have absolutely nothing to ***** about. All non-residents are guests here period, nothing more!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hey Guys, Sen. Conrad said the money, (if his bill passes), would go to NDGF to be used as they see fit on PLOTS type programs. No Fedral strings. State run. All midwestern states with public access programs would qualify. So MN could build their own house instead of using ours. He mentioned Kansas, Nebraska, SD too.

The possible danger here is that the ND legislative appropriations committees would see the influx of money into NDGF budgets and tap other money out for other state agencies as they did last session. I believe the quote was " shut up or we will take more". There is going to be real pressure next session to siphon off NDGF money. Count on it. They already did it to the habitat stamp increase for 2003.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Bill as written or originally intended yes ... If and when passed we will see?

Great point Dick. Government often takes $ from those they believe have too much and distributes it elsewhere. I believe it is the main principal of Senator Conrad's party.

Might as well do it within government agencies too.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I would like to see this conversation continue for a bit along a tangent.

The question of stubble payment for access is a difficult one. For someone coming in new to an area, one crop field looks very much like another, unless there is a thousand birds in it. And as far as landowners go, waterfowl use, if not hunter use, is very subjective. Two gentlemen right beside each other might see the value of there properties widely differently. Also, most fields are in rotations, and what are all the folks going to say when they drive by a soybean field and see PLOTS signs around it??? "WHat in the (*&^&%( am I paying for that for??"

Add on that the best of these areas are often of lesser value for multiple species habitat,and you can start to see some of the difficulty. Deer hunters and upland hunters look at CRP and see opportunities, they look at barley stubble and say "huh???" I will tell you that i hear far more complaints about there being to much stubble than not enough.

Now all that being said you are going to be hearing about the new Working Lands program that we are batching offers for right now. This is going to focus much more on working farms than on CRP than has been done in the past.

I am looking for constructive suggestions on the stubble issue. Think about them in the light of offering them in a couple counties, instead of just that one field you would all wish was open. How many miles of Barley stubble do you drive by before you find that one field that has the X in it? Anyway, would like to see where this goes.


----------



## prairie hunter (Mar 13, 2002)

Just think about it. Farmers now would plant Barley for the additional "hunting lease" supplement.

I have found that there are several key fields across ND that hold birds when ever they are put into barley. The rotation maybe every other or every three years, but the birds seemed to be attracted to certain fields or specific areas each and every year.

Question(s): Should the NDG&F talk with local hunters about where the crop PLOTs should be leased? Would these "local" people want that land open if they could access it independently?

Personally when I find a posted barley field I am excited. My success rate is nearly 90% for permission and once on I know the competition will not be 200 yards down wind. Crop field access really an issue?

Maybe the NDG&F should only target *crop PLOT land *in regions heavily leased by G/Os. This would provide freelance field hunters with a place to go once pushed out by the big money.

NDG&F could compete directly with G/Os to lease the good fields. Possible? Feasible?


----------



## Lazyass (Oct 8, 2003)

All i see is you all B**ching about NR hunters but all of the money that we give to ducks unlimited and delta water fowl which i am a commette member of and a sponsor of goes to be used up their to increase the duck population i realize that there are some a**hole resident and nonresident hunter so don't just say NR because it is not just the nonresident it is a special group called the idiots because i am not one of these people and most of the people here are not and if any of you would like to come to louisiana and hunt feel free i would be glad to bring you and you could even stay with me it is nice to go some where else and hunt to experience the differnt types of hunt down here we hunt out of the marh where there is no bottom to it and you have to hunt out of a boat you can not walk anywhere you will sink to you ears and it is very different last year was the first time i went to ND we have a group of 10 people that meet at the state park north of minot we stay a week and have a good time but we do not cause trouble. we have a good time and we obey all the laws

Sorry if this ****** anyone off but i am just tired of reading it so i just wanted to say my side of it


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Lazyass, I think this thread has been rather constructive, then you come in with the negativity. Bashing of NR's is a direct result of to much land being leased by G/O's, which is the real topic here. We are trying to figure out reasonable ways to be able to compete with big money. As far as DU and DW, imagine the fact that both those groups are based in the south. Do your pledge drives, buy habitat, promote the growth of waterfowl, all honorable ideas. What is the desired end result? More ducks for you to shoot all winter. We have the natural nesting resources here, you have the most access to wintering waterfowl there, it is in your best interest to promote productive habitat here. It is in our best interest to see that our heritage is maintained here, so we try what we can to preserve that part of our lives. The only thing we can do is try and get some legislation passed for our benefit, so we do. If you want the NR bashing to quit, start coming up with solutions to our g/o, land access issues, and quit the whining. I feel all hunters are welcome here, resident and NR, but the shooters can stay home. 
:sniper:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Grand Forks Herald--Tom Dennis

EDITORIAL: How wildlife can power the N.D. economy 
OUR VIEW: Refuges and other protected lands are proven magnets for much-sought-after young professionals.

Years ago, leaders who wanted their city to grow lived by this mantra: Hope. Hope, that is, for a savior in the form of a big company deciding to move in.

Leaders still do their share of hoping, but now they've wised up to the fact that "home grown" companies also offer great opportunites. A local entrepreneur who builds a better mousetrap could be the next Microsoft Great Plains, North Dakotans know.

Now there's a third level of development insight - this one even more local than the last.

Because where the second level sees opportunities in existing businesses, the third one sees potential for growth on land where there's nothing at all.

Nothing, that is, except big bluestem, prairie roses and maybe a bison or two. Wildlife refuges are a North Dakota opportunity in the making, recent research shows.

North Dakota has 63 National Wildlife Refuges. That's more than any other state and more than 10 percent of the national total. The refuges protect more than 290,000 acres and include such gems as the home of the largest breeding colony of white pelicans in America (Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge), and one of the highest-known populations of sharp-tailed grouse in the United States (Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge).

Now, wildlife refuges usually aren't seen as "growth opportunites" - especially in North Dakota, where pressure still is strong to put empty land to taxpaying use. But that should change. Because "a new study on the Refuge System shows it was a major economic engine for communities in 2002, adding millions of dollars in jobs and retail sales," the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports.

"The more than 35.5 million visits to the nation's 540 refuges fueled more than $809 million in sales of recreation equipment, food, lodging, transportation, and other expenditures in 2002 ... . That figure is more than double the $401.1 million generated in 1995, the last time the study was conducted."

The number of jobs that the refuge system created also has doubled. In 1995, 10,200 jobs were created by the recreation spending that the refuges generated. In 2002, that figure had risen to 19,000 jobs.

"The economic benefits from refuges would make venture capitalists envious," said Fish and Wildlife Service Director (and UND graduate) Steve Williams.

But don't take his word for it. Thomas Power chairs the economics department at the University of Montana in Missoula. In repeated studies, Power has documented that "federal protection of landscapes through national parks and wilderness designations does not slow economic growth. In fact, such protection was associated with growth rates two to six times those for both other nonmetropolitan counties and two to three times those of metropolitan areas over the 1960 to 1990 time period."

In other words, "protected lands drew new residents who were willing to sacrifice a certain amount of income in order to live in the higher quality natural environments that they perceived federal protected landscapes provided," Power has written

The lesson for North Dakota is clear: The state should ramp up its ecotourism sales and marketing effort. In the entire state, only Theodore Roosevelt National Park is anything like a household name among upper Midwesterners who enjoy the outdoors. Let's bring our refuges front and center in a new effort to talk up the state's beauty - and watch North Dakota's economy improve and "flat, dull" reputation at last start to turn around.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
In Sen. Conrad's news release he stressed that ecotourism will be part of that bill. Don't be suprised to see many hands reaching for the money. Best hope is that NDGF runs all programs funded by this bill and that ND has a strong NDGF Director and a governor that will back that person. Can you imagine if hospitality gets their fingers in this pie? DM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree with tsodak...making stubble fields into PLOTS areas is a waste of money.Too many choices for the birds to go to.

I would prefer the money be used to opend up more CRP,especially areas that have potholes.

I also feel there needs to be more state rest areas.That was in a new law passed by the legislature.

Tom...do you know if any landowners have tried to put their land into rest areas?


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Dick,
I would have to agree that this may be a clever way for Conrad to bring more money to the state. Under the disguise(sp) of ecological/economic development he will bring the money in and then transfer out of NDG&F fund. :eyeroll: How can this be stopped. Is there any legislation that says that all money brought to the Game and Fish through license fees has to stay in the fund? Is there any way to appropriate a certain percentage of taxes to the Game and Fish? I know this is done in Missouri. Could we pass something like this?


----------



## Lazyass (Oct 8, 2003)

just wonder g/o are they allowed to bring sports on refuge property down here we put a stop to it only individual hunters can use this property and at all are refuge they have wardens that check everyone in and out that way if they want to make money let them pay to lease land to bring people


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

I've never been a conrad fan...i think he's dirty....no...i don't have any evidence whatsover...just don't care for him...period. He's been in there so long the 20 year old interns he was macking on are now probably like mid 30's. WE NEED SOME NEW BLOOD AND NEW IDEAS!!!!

We'll see how much i care for him after we find out all the SMALL PRINT in the new action he is proposing.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Anyone using a G/O cannot hunt on state or federal land.


----------



## tmorrie (Apr 1, 2002)

fireball stated: "As far as DU and DW, imagine the fact that both those groups are based in the south."

Aah, Delta isn't based in the south. It's main offices are in Canada on the Delta Marsh and in Bismarck, ND. www.deltawaterfowl.org


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Guys, don't misunderstand me, I'm not knocking Sen. Conrad's idea at all. I heard him say that the proposed money in the bill would go to NDGF and I believe he meant what he said. The danger is that the appropriations committee of our ND legislature will try to tack outside unrelated programs on to NDGF budgets to take advantage of the influx of new money, (if it comes). Both the tourism and hospitality folks would love to get their hands on this cash to promote NR hunting here for their market hunter buddies. How do you say "we need a grant"? The G/Os would like nothing better than to suck up bucks to promote "economic developement", when those dollars were meant for habitat. If they get us again, it will be by the back door.

One thing we do *NOT* want to do is view our problem with market hunting as a Democrat or Republican issue. Do *not* fall for it. Last session we had many friends on both sides of the isle. Our foes would love to see us get into partisan bickering and thus split and defray our united efforts. Like Maz says, stay focused.


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

Sometimes you need to look a little bit deeper than the cover of the book. I work for a company that has their corporate offices in Bermuda, to avoid tax's, yet we build there product here in ND. 
Here is a list of the regional directors for DW.
Regional Directors 
Bryan King (bio) South LA and SE TX 
Allen Morrison (bio) AR 
Jason Tharpe (bio) North LA and Northeast TX 
Tom Tunnicliffe (bio) MS, AL, TN and West KY 
ND isn't even a region in there organization, we are a breeding ground.

Not to mention, if you look at the chapters in each state, the south has hundreds of them, the north, a handful.
ND, MN and SD have 4 chapters total...AK has 11 itself.


----------



## tmorrie (Apr 1, 2002)

fireball,

Good information, but most of the habitat they develop is in ND and Canada, meaning we get a crack at the majority of the waterfowl raised in these areas. As for your concerns about Delta because they have a southern influence in addition to ND/Canada. No sense arguing what's more important between the breeding grounds and wintering areas, beceause the birds need both.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

tmorrie...I disagree with part of your statement...DU has so little development here that they really don't make a difference.Federal WPA'S produce tons more ducks than DU projects.Most money goes to Canada.And Canadas ducks mostly overfly us.So we really don't get first crack at very many of them.


----------



## tmorrie (Apr 1, 2002)

Ken W, I was talking about Delta not DU (see my earlier reply)


----------



## hansonni (Aug 19, 2002)

I agree with fireball about not always agree with washington, but giving them support. It has been a tough few years, and all things considered, I think all of us are still surviving (we all obviously have computers so we can't be out on the streets). I think anytime we can throw federal money into north dakota, especially to try and improve hunting conditions, is worth my money. I would love it if more and more of our federal taxes go toward things like this, makes me feel slightly better when I look at my stubb!! and correct me if i'm wrong but isn't federal money coming out of all our pockets? even nr? 4curlredleg said something about nr being guests and having nothing say about the matter, but if it's federal dollers they do, correct?


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

Lots of state activities (e.g. colleges, human services programs, etc.) receive Federal funding that do not create equal opportunities for res and nonres. By and large, game management, even when it comes to migratory birds, is left with the states, and the receipt of Federal dollars in this context is no different than the other the other partially Federaly funded, but state controlled, activities.


----------

