# HSUS at your bank



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

http://blog.beefmagazine.com/beef_daily ... your-bank/

Amanda Nolz July 6th, 2009
I hope all of you had a wonderful weekend celebrating our freedom and independence. It's back to another busy work week, and I keep hearing reports about our favorite organization, the Humane Society of the United States. This time, they are using credit card spending to raise funds for their costly agendas, including abolishing animal agriculture entirely in this country. A reader recently sent me an email about this, urging me to push for action against this report. If you have an account with Bank of America, let them know how disappointed you are with their recent partnership with HSUS, and don't forget to cancel that credit card!

The Bank of America (BofA) announced that it is partnering with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) on a credit-card program, and the response from farmers and ranchers has drawn the attention of the banking giant's management team. BofA's MyExpression program is offering an HSUS checking account and associated Visa check card, as well as an HSUS Visa credit card. Both of these products financially support HSUS. According to the BofA Web site, the bank will donate 25 cents to the animal-rights organization for every $100 in purchases made with the HSUS WorldPoints Platinum Plus Visa credit card.

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of HSUS, is quoted as saying, "This is a great way to support the work of The Humane Society of the United States. When you open your account, and each time you make an eligible purchase with your Bank of America VISA check card, you'll support our mission to combat animal cruelty and care for animals in need."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Thanks. I appreciate you alerting us to that. I will have to do some snooping on my Visa card. Mine is a Cabela's and I don't think they would be real happy if their card is associated with something like that.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

I also have a Cabelas visa card. Posted this kind of late. Was in new york city for a week. My wife wanted to go there for our 25th. I think everyone should see the big apple. Quite an eye opener. I took every opportunity to talk to new yorkers about food production and hunting. Can't say I liked the answers. The people live in boroughs, hardly leaving a five mile radius. Many don't own cars or have a drivers license.

There are about 435,000 people on Staten Island. I don't think it is 20x20 miles square. It costs 12 dollars toll to cross the Verrizarro bridge to the main land. The people commute to work on Manhatton by ferry. Up to 4000 at a time every half hour. People wait in lines for everything. English is a second language. Times square at midnight is elbow to elbow traffic. It is good to be back in North Dakota. Now, whenever I miss the the sights, sounds, and smell of new york, I just walk across the room and piss in my humidifier.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> Thanks. I appreciate you alerting us to that. I will have to do some snooping on my Visa card. Mine is a Cabela's and I don't think they would be real happy if their card is associated with something like that.


Cabelas visa is listed under World's Foremost Bank.

They are also tied into US Bank


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Canned shooting and HSUS are dependent on each other. It's symbiosis.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

DG said:


> Now, whenever I miss the the sights, sounds, and smell of new york, I just walk across the room and piss in my humidifier.


 :lol: That is funny


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Tk33,

Thanks for posting that.

Dick,

Are you trying to hi-jack another one of my threads? I fail to see the advantage HSUS involvement offers me. Now on the other hand what about non-residents, CRP, canned hunting, wetlands, posting private property etc. Without these issues what real function would the NDWF and TWS provide. Now that is the definition of symbiosis. And let's not forget about the funding. Last time I looked these surrogates of the federal government received 85 million dollars of taxpayer monies. Sen. Dorgan was on the appropriations of a commitee granting this giveaway back in 2005. He is coming up for re-election soon. Might be time to make some noise.


----------



## goodkarmarising (Feb 8, 2008)

x


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Hey Dick, now that your back in the "Hot Topics", why don't you go back and answer the questions you were asked in the "battle is brewing" thread before you start rambling about something else. At the very least, if you want anyone to take you seriously, explain your statement above about symbiosis and all that.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Word Mechanic


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Dwight, thank you for the complement. :beer:

Both of the groups (HSUS & Canned Shooting) need each other to recruit members and money.They suck each others blood for mutual benefit.

However it is the hunters that will suffer. Hunters lose from the actions of both sides. Since the topic dealt with the HSUS, Dwight, I hardly think it is stolen from you. Or was the topic about humidifiers?

*Dwight said:*


> I took every opportunity to talk to new yorkers about food production and hunting. Can't say I liked the answers.


Maybe next time you are in New York you could hand out your business cards, with little pictures, like the elk, the high fence, the elk, the high fence... Maybe that would win friends and influence people to support fair chase hunting.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick'

You are reading into my quote more than what is there. I talked to new yorkers in general about food production. They have a disconnect from the land and how people grow food from the land. I talked to new yorkers about hunting in general. They don't like fur or harming any living creatures.

Buisiness Cards??? I don't need to do that. Business is already good. Repeat customers and word of mouth. Give them what they want. Under sell over deliver.

I don't need HSUS but you do. When HSUS pounds its chest, unsuspecting sportsman flock to the waiting arms of NDWF. What they can't know is that in D.C. the national wildlife federation is lined up at the same public trough as HSUS. With a wink and a nod these controlled oppostion groups go about the business of screwing the angry working man out of his tax dollars.

It's compliment not complement. Word mechanic.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, I'm sure the HSUS uses your "canned" hunting as well as any other form of hunting ( dove, fur seal, wolf, bear ect...All the cute and cuddly, using pictures of cubs and pups and if all else fails pull out the puppies and the kittens as well as misrepresenting animal agriculture) in their attempts to recruit enough members to accomplish their goal of ending all hunting or taking of an animals life once and for all. If you are foolish enough to believe they are only attempting to end one form check out their latest facebook connection. So I understand that part of your statement even though it is only a partial connection designed to suit your personal agenda. But can you please explain how HFH operations need the HSUS to "recruit members" or how they "suck" HSUS's "blood for mutual benefit"?

Maybe if you ever get to New York you can hand out "little pictures" of gutshot deer not recovered during your "fair chase" hunting to "win friends and influence people" ! :eyeroll: Anyone that is willing to segment and divide hunting because of their personal ethical belief is a fool that does not understand these groups will go after all hunting and the lengths they will go to to accomplish it. Dick if you will please answer me one simple question. If all HFH was ended tommorow do you think HSUS will say OK and walk away from their agenda to end all forms of ending an animals life of which "fair chase hunting" is ??? Of course not, but yet you continue to divide and alienate the hunting community when we need to stand united more than ever, because of this blind personal agenda. And that IMO is VERY foolish. I would hope that you would stop short of handing out any of these pictures yourself in your "rabid" attempt to further your agenda, but unfortunately I'm not too sure. I hope that you don't mind that I took the liberty to answer that question for you. With your history of not answering questions I assumed it's the only way it would be.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chris Hustad said:


> DG said:
> 
> 
> > Now, whenever I miss the the sights, sounds, and smell of new york, I just walk across the room and piss in my humidifier.
> ...


Ya, it was the best laugh I had all day. Then I thought about it and the sad part is it's accurate too.


----------



## 8x56mn (Mar 14, 2007)

Please do not confusem NYC with NYS. Were a dairy state :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

8x56mn said:


> Please do not confusem NYC with NYS. Were a dairy state :roll:


We wouldn't saddle you with NYC stigma. 

DG, gst, have you noticed the latest Czar? I forget his name off hand. I posted it in the political form. This guy is a raving maniac animal rights activist from Chicago. He thinks wildlife, pets, and farm animals should have human rights extended to them. He thinks your dog or cow should be able to bring suite against you. Not good.

So what dumb lawyer is going to file for your dog or cow? This is going to be a new low for attorneys. I'll bet the decent attorneys who didn't like being called ambulance chasers are not going to like this either. I can hear J Leno now.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

Can you please explain your statement:

quote: "Both of the groups (HSUS & Canned Shooting) need each other to recruit members and money.They suck each others blood for mutual benefit."

What is that? Hate speech, harassment, defamation, civil libel? And the way you underlined money. How old are you now? 58 or 59?

Might I remind you, it was your little fair chase committee that hopped into bed with HSUS for mutual benefit.

No.1 David Pauli, director of the montana humane society blogged on the internet that he met with an official of the fair chase committee in Bismarck. Documented.

No.2 Karen Thuneshell from the humane society in Minot admitted contact with Roger K. chairman of the fair chase committee. Fact

No.3 Cody Marthaller from the humane society in Fargo blabbed around town he was in contact with Roger K.

No.4 Karen Thuneshell and her girlfreinds were posting comments on the Bismarck Tribunes on-line site posing as sportsman. Unsuspecting veiwers reading those posts, to sway public opinion, thought they were reading comments posted by hunters. Isn't that devious.

No.5 When petitioners are done gathering signatures they must first have them notarized before turning them in to the secretary of state. The north dakota elk growers has copies of all the ballot petitions turned in for the fair chase intiative and know exactly which HSUS members turned in petitions. They turned in over 2000 sigs. Fact

Dick, If I know all these things then so do you. Question is what did you know and when did you know it? You don't have to answer that. Even if you told the truth no one would believe you.

So what was it like when you crawled in between the sheets with HSUS? Was it dark out? Did you close the blinds and turn off the lights so real sportsman wouldn't see? When the deed was done did you feel dirty? Do you now feel any remorse or guilt? Inquiring minds want to know. What was it like Dick? What was it like?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman. This guy has been on the radar of most animal ag orgs. for a while. Heres a perfect opportunity for EVERYONE to be on the same page. Sportsmen can help themselves as well as animal agriculture. Call your representatives. Lets see what happens. Hopefully even if this guy says his first order of business would be to ban HFH, Dick would have enough sense not to support him. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I understand what your saying, and it has some merit. However, I think there is a more serious problem that is slipping past us. Here is the big problem gst. As more land gets posted, and hunting becomes more commercialized fewer people each year will be able to afford access to the sport. When the sport gets to expensive for the common man then we are in danger. Politicians understand numbers, and many will think they just don't have a dog in the fight. Then sportsmen and farmers both loose. It will work like the old communist expansion strategy of divide and conquer. 
If you read my post that go years back you will see this is an idea I have expressed many times, that farmers and sportsmen need each other. Alone our numbers are not sufficient to protect either of us from some of the off the wall ideas some groups have. I have given farmers a lot of crap, not because I dislike them, but because I want to awaken them. I took grief from some for it, but if I woke them up it was worth it. 
The political climate for extreme ideas is ripe. We will all need to be much more vigilante in the next few years. I think hunting and animal agriculture are in extreme danger, and I don't mean just wildlife type animal agriculture. For those who don't take that serious look where the estrogen production went.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

Estrogen heck, look at the horse situation as a whole. Montana is considering building slaughter plants for unwanted horses. But before a nickle is spent, investors want a law on the books guarenteeing them protection from frivolous lawsuits, harassment and the federal government passing laws similar to the ones that shut DeKalb Il. and the two in Texas. Who is going to invest in America if you don't know from one day to the next whether or not you own your property or the options on that property.

Rep. Froelich would like to see a horse slaughter plant in N.D. But first we are going to need anti-harass anti-sue-you-for-any-frivolous-reason laws to protect the plant. If someone or organization were to sue big and lose big they would have to pay a big fine. If someone or organization were to harass they are going to jail. Had these laws already existed, Dick M. and Roger K. would be cellmates.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rep. Froelich has such radical ideas that I would not support anything he supports, and I would turn helicopter gunships loose on wild horses. They are not native, or wildlife, and very habitat destructive. In the past pet food companies like Alpo were given free rein to use wild horses. I would turn them loose again today, but support Froelich? No way. He is to much for any thing that turns a buck. Including wildlife commercialization. 
I understand your guys problems, but Froelich is the kiss of death just like HSUS is to sportsmen trying to change laws. If support is not found for a high fence bill again I would consider it, but if HSUS even showed their nose I would back out. I would rather not be involved so that I could contact HSUS and chew their behind. I would really like to pound into their head that if they are going to continue their radical ways they will loose credability. It's the mentality of guys like Froelich that push me into anything I can do against wildlife commercialization. 
There are two big reasons we are unable to come together. HSUS and guys like Froelich. Opposite ends of radicalism.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Actually Plainsman the "reason we are unable to come together"is because to many people are only concerned with what benefits them and they aren't smart enough to look past the worst types of radicalism you talk of from either side. As long as people are only concerned with their " quality hunting opportunities" regardless of cost how do you think anything positive will result???


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

If as you say any involvement by HSUS would cause you to back out of any support for a high fence law than you should have been making fast tracks for the door right from the git go. And why would you chew HSUS butt. You need to clean your own dirty house first.

HSUS involvement started way back in June of -06. The north dakota wildlife federation put it out there (not widely advertized) that there was going to be a meeting in Bismarck to be attended by sportsmen from several organizations to discuss some issues. One was high fence and how it has raised the IRE of groups like HSUS. There was only 12 people there. The ones in the know. Most of these men were on the payroll of the federal government the taxpayer or some taxpayer subsidized pretend sportsmen group. Meetings like this are highly choreographed shams were the opposition is not invited. Minutes are kept and then the story line is feed to the media who pass it along to the public that meetings were held, issues were discussed and we now have consensus. I was thrown out of that meeting.

Think about it. I was peaceably assembled, not saying a word, just listening. These professionals violated my first amendment rights. I didn't get my nose out of joint over it but then they dubbed this whole affair (fair Chase). Plainsman, You know personally, eveyone of those men in that room.

Now here is where things get sticky. A few days later a letter to the editor was written by none other than Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, to I believe the Bismarck Tribune. I saw it but I did not save it. (regrets) But I bet someone could find it. The date is most important because it arrived just a few days after the NDWF meeting. In his opinion piece Wayne Pacelle was saying pretty much the same things dicussed at the NDWF meeting. Is that a coinsidence or is collution?

Was someone at that meeting talking to Wayne Pacelle? That someone would have had to have a lot of connections and influence. What about Land Tawney, director for the national wildlife federation? He was there. And of course like I keep reminding you the nwf is federally funded. Wouldn't that be a kick in the a$$ if some of my tax dollars went pay to his wages. Anyway Land Tawney left nwf to start an organization Sportsmen for Obama. He has connections.

So Plainsman, I'm on the outside of the house looking in. It's your house you live in it with Dick and all the gang. What did you know and when did you know it?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I guess this is the first I have heard of it. Please PM me the names of thees people so I can see if I do know them. Got to go for now, I'm busy playing with grandkids.

Back for a minute. Some history:
I was the last dog to sign on to sponsor the high fence bill.
I met Dick and Roger along with five or six other guys at the Gladstone in Jamestown. We met for about one hour. 
I personally knew one person out of the 30 who sponsored the bill. 
By the time the meetings you are talking about occurred I had been retired a year and a half. 
Here are some things you have mentioned before, but I'm skeptical. The NWF being federally funded. Since our local is the first Thursday of the month and so is my law enforcement meeting I have not joined them. I do however belong to United Sportsman. I don't think any of these grass roots organizations get any federal money. Are you sure your not confusing them with some other organization that is actually a partner with the feds? 
Since I was in research and not management I was never familiar with these partnership organizations. As a matter of fact we were switched from Fish and Wildlife Service way back in Clinton's early years. I have lost touch with management and enforcement. Our job was to look for answers involving not just wildlife, but any biological question for any federal, state, or private organization. They come up with the funds and we did the unbiased research.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, I remember on other guy too, who was the Game and Fish commissioner for a few years. I have not seen him for three or four years though. The whole group of us never got together. So this quote really doesn't fit.



> So Plainsman, I'm on the outside of the house looking in. It's your house you live in it with Dick and all the gang.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

I already testified at the capitol regarding this so instead of PM I'll just post it here.

No.1 Geg Meyer of Mule Deer Foundation. MDF is a federal creation.
No.2 Greg Hagar Cass County Wildlife Federation.
No.3 Bill Helphrey Bowhunters Assoc. (Government & Conservation)
No.4 Sandy Barnes Sportsmans Alliance Sponser fair chase
No.5 Mike Donahue lobbyist for NDWF
These first five were not (radical) active participants. 
No.6 Bob Kellam He said he was there to represent the ND Outdoor Heritage Coalition. It's a creation of Dick Monson and company. A shell organization. A blowfish.
No.7 Shawn Mckenna President of NDWF. After Sen. Bill 2254 {Feb.1-07} he disappeared.
No.8 Mark Reisner United Sportsman Sponser Mark wanted United Sportsman to support Sen. 2254 they voted unanamouslly no. He again wanted them to support the HFI. They told him hell no. In a huff he quit or resigned. 
No.9 Land Tawney Director for NWF. Land hung around Jim Posewitz. They both were invovled with sportsman for Obama. Jim Posewitz was involved with I-143 in Montana to end high fence. He was at the wildlife society meeting in Williston on Feb. 9-06 to give a presentation on how to convince the public to vote against HF. Plainsman this is government area right? Just a few months later Land brought this message to Bismarck.
No.10 Gary Maching Sponser (radical) If Jim Posewitz said it, it must be true. 
No.11 David Brandt Sponser Federal biologist USGS. President of Stutsman county wildlife federation. 2008 president of the NDWF 
No.12 Dick Monson Sponser.

Plainsman, In truth, some of these organizations were created to provide cover for these ban everything advocates by allowing them to claim support from "sportsmens groups".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If this meeting was before the initiative then I knew two of those guys. Now you can add Dick to that list. I am still confused about the meeting. Was it only to talk about high fence hunts? Was it a public meeting? I don't have enough information to grasp what was going on. The list doesn't look like a public meeting. How did you get the invite?

Again why do you say NWF is federally funded? As far as I know their only funding is membership. Do they get some matching funds? They are a private sportsmen's group. I know they can apply for money for shooting ranges etc, but so can any other hunting/sportsmens group.

Do you belong to one of these local groups? Membership isn't much, maybe I'll have to join just so I can get thier monthly or quarterly letter or whatever. I guess the best way to understand is to join.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I just realized there are people that don't post on this site that read it. One of my downfalls is that I am poor with people names. Ask me a plant or insect in North Dakota and I can more often than not give you the latin scientific name, but Bob, Bill, Marry etc I can't remember. Sometimes I forget the names of people I have known for a few years.

Anyway, many of the names you guys are tossing around don't mean anything to me. From someone who watches these threads I recieved the following message, with permission to post the information.

Remember now, don't shoot the messenger. 



> Tell DG to put up or shut up. He claims TWS and NDWF got 85 million of federal funding. On the TWS website http://joomla.wildlife.org click on about us and then finances. This includes tax returns for 4 years including 2005 when TWS received just over 130k of grants from the federal government. So where is he getting the 85 million dollar figure? Pure bs.
> 
> his info on NWF is also dead wrong. Tell him to give you a link that shows his claims. Just in his statements alone, here are the errors. Land Tawney was hired by NWF to be a regional director and resigned as soon as he took the job for Obama to avoid conflict of interest. Shawn McKenna was NEVER president of NDWF. He was hired as executive director by the board of directors for NDWF and resigned to take another job. As far as I know, United Sportsmen never voted unanimously against the high fence initiative and the vote was actually close.
> 
> NDWF is an umbrella organization made up of representatives of a number of wildlife clubs like stutsman county from across the state. it does not stand on its own and our annual meeting has reps from every club.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

I have posted it here several times so what's one more.

http://www.teaming.com/about/

American Fisheries Society 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 
Association of Zoos and Aquariums 
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation 
Izaak Walton League of America 
National Audubon Society 
National Wild Turkey Federation 
National Wildlife Federation 
The Nature Conservancy 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 
The Wildlife Society 
Wildlife Conservation Society 
Wildlife Management Institute

So tell me , which one of these was started by sportsmen? None they were created durring the 30's by the Franklin Roosevelt administration.

Their new mission:
http://www.teaming.com/pdf/FY10SWG%20Si ... -House.pdf

85 million dollars per year for the State Wildlife Grants Program
If the Department of Interior, Forest Service or Natural Resources Conservation Service are under funded than why not appropriate the money directly to them where there is oversight? Because that 85 million breathes life and legitimacy into these 501(c)3 nonprofit non-governmental organizations. Look at the teaming with wildlife website. It's all about the money. The states wildlife grants program is another name for public-private partnerships that merge these 501(c)3s with government coercion.

There is no environmental movement or animal rights one which does not operate in the interest of money, in the direction indicated by money, for that period of time permitted by money, and all this without the idealist in its ranks having the slightest suspicion of the fact.

So who are the idealists? Look at Sen. Bill 2254 Six men testified for it.

No.1 Dick Monson There is that name again
No.2 Dave Brandt There is that name again
No.3 Gary Masching There is that name again
No.4 Shawn McKenna He dropped out after 2254
No.5 Roger Kaseman First time 
No.6 Mike McEnroe Federal biologist USFWS lobbyist for the wildlife society

Plainsman if you don't get bogged down in the red herring issues of the HFI and just follow the names a pattern develops. There were 30 names as sponsers of the high fence iniative. 4 were federal agents.
No.1 Lloyd Jones
No.2 Bruce Hanson
No.3 H.Thomas Sklebar
No.4 Dave Brandt

What is significant about nodakoutdoors is that 11 of the sponsers came from here.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com:80/forums/ ... hp?t=42776

Out of the 30 sponser most did not collect a single signature. The brunt of the sigs were collected by those same old names. Roger Kaseman, Gary Masching, Dick Monson, Mike McEnroe, Dave Brandt and HSUS.

These men have been with this issue since its inception. There "was" HSUS invovlement. What did they know and when did they know it?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So tell me , which one of these was started by sportsmen? None they were created durring the 30's by the Franklin Roosevelt administration.


Absolutely not. I think your confusing wildlife groups, just like people often confuse state and federal. I know the NWF is not federal. The only thing I found on this first site that you posted was this:


> NWF Awarded Grant from Wildlife Conservation Society


As you notice the grant was not federal it was from the Wildlife Conservation Society. I think there are federal grants available to private organizations as long as they meet some standards for habitat improvement etc. That is not the same as federal funding would be if they were included in a federal budget. They are not. 
The societies are groups of professional biologists who have formed their own organizations. For example I belonged to the Wildlife Society. We had no federal funds. It was state and federal wildlife biologists, biologists from NDSU etc. I don't think any of the organizations you listed get federal budget dollars. I know none were created by the government. None. 
I am guessing the 85 million your talking about is the grants available from the collected 11% excise tax that sportsmen pay for their equipment. This is a tax that sportsmen lobbied for. One of those taxes we wanted to pay. I am not familiar with all the things these funds are used for.



> There were 30 names as sponsers of the high fence iniative. 4 were federal agents.


At one time in their life. Some of us old guys are retired, but were life long hunters and still interested in what happens.



> What did they know and when did they know it?


I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. What did they know? What is it you think they knew or should have known. 
I'm not trying to avoid anything. Like asking you to post something you had already done many times. I just forget many of these things. Thanks for having the patience to post again.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wow, more infor coming my way fast. I'm to lazy to search for all this stuff, but the PM's and email keep coming.



> American Fisheries Society 1869
> Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 1902. Founded by state agencies. All State agencies belong to this association, they are the lead group for Teaming with Wildlife.
> Association of Zoos and Aquariums 1924
> Izaak Walton League of America 1922 Sportsmen founded
> ...


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

OOPS!

My bad, I was thinking of two, The Wildlife Society (1937) and National Wildlife Federation (1936) when I posted that.

So now you have PM's and e-mail coming your way. Who is sending the damage control?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG said:


> OOPS!
> 
> My bad, I was thinking of two, The Wildlife Society (1937) and National Wildlife Federation (1936) when I posted that.
> 
> So now you have PM's and e-mail coming your way. Who is sending the damage control?


I belong to the Wildlife Society. It may have started in 1937, but it is made up of private, federal, and state wildlife biologists. It is where we can voice opinion and be active outside our jobs without conflict of interest. It is a private society of specialists and not linked to government in any way including budget.
The National Wildlife Federation is simply the parent organization of all our little local wildlife clubs like the Jamestown chapter of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation. The only government money is if we are granted money for a particular project and we must compete for it. You know, like matching funds for planting trees or something. 
I'll tell you this much about who is sending PM's and such. It's from private individuals, and it's not Dick or any of those guys. I was happy for the information to straighten this out in my head. I pay little attention to those types of things, even the society that I belong to.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman said,

Quote:NWF Awarded Grant from Wildlife Conservation Society

Quote: As you notice the grant was not federal it was from the Wildlife Conservation Society. I think there are federal grants available to private organizations as long as they meet some standards for habitat improvement etc.

Plainsman, This is the kind of thing I posted Hot Topics Titled Battle Brewing. Signe Snortland is a federal agent for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Is a member of Seirra Club and is a board member of the Northern Plains Heritage Foundation. The way the rules are written the NPHF is going to receive one million dollars (grant) per year and they can give some of the money to the Sierra Club. Taxpayers dollars.

The State Wildlife Grants program has a lot of money. I was wondering if the template is the same? Can the Wildlife Conservation Society give grant money to the NWF? Can they grant it back or give some to the Seirra Club? "symbiosis" Can they use it to sway public opinion or local governing authorities with their recommendations. We are talking about a lot of taxpayers dollars.

You belong to the wildlife society? I find that interesting.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You belong to the wildlife society? I find that interesting.


Just about every professional biologist does. The goal is for an annual meeting where everyone catches up on cutting edge science. Mangers get information on new techniques and data related to research often before it is published. New research is presented at every meeting. This would be much like a teacher belonging to the North Dakota Teachers Association, or a police officer belonging to the North Dakota Peace officers Association. I think your trying to make something of something that doesn't exist.



> The way the rules are written the NPHF is going to receive one million dollars (grant) per year and they can give some of the money to the Sierra Club.


Grants are not annual, they are a one time deal, for a specific project.



> Taxpayers dollars.


 This is why I brought up the excise tax. So many people think they are entitled to things because they paid taxes. That's not true. Many of these taxes like the excise tax are aimed at hunting equipment. However, as I explained it's a tax hunters asked for, not one imposed by the government.

The Wildlife Society because it is private can give their money to anyone they want just like you can. The problem is they don't have much money to give. Normally we have an auction as a fund raiser just to pay for next years meeting. Oh and the items at the banquet come from us members. One guy may donate an ice house he built, one a carving he did himself, another a custom rod he built etc. I don't think you understand at all what the Wildlife Society is.



> Can they grant it back or give some to the Seirra Club?


 To grant it back they would first have to get some from the Sierra Club. I don't remember them ever getting a penny from the Sierra Club, but then I have not been to a meeting for three years.



> Can they use it to sway public opinion or local governing authorities with their recommendations. We are talking about a lot of taxpayers dollars.


First off if you have really looked into this you should understand that there are no tax payer dollars associated with the Wildlife Society. Second I suppose they could sway public opinion if they are asked for data, present the data, and the data changes anyones mind. This is a scientific organization nothing more.

I need to get to one of the meetings again. Evidently they have an opinion contrary to yours.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

I was at a wildlife society meeting once. They had two men from the Game Fish and Parks there from South Dakota. Their presentation included a slide show about pheasant hunting operations. They made great fun of farmers who had remodeled old barns into lodges. Made fun of wrought iron gates of wheat and pheasants at the entrance to the yard. Showed a pictured of a stretch hummer to haul the hunters around. They even told that story of the rich farmer who purchased a hunting dog from europe for twenty thousand dollars. He couldn't do anything with the dog until he figured out the dog couldn't understand english. It got a few chuckles.

Then Dr. Susan Keller of the board of animal health was invited to talk about animal diseases. There was two buffalo on the loose at the time south of Mandan. (winter 2005) Some lady "radical" went after Dr. Keller, what are the proper procedures. Idenification, how many hours to round-up, how many hours to report, it went round and round. It was obvious this women wanted some farmer or ranchers head on a plate. Finally Dr. Keller said the origin of the animals has been identified as Fort Yates reservation. The woman sat down and shut up.

And then it was the elk and deer growers turn in the barrel. Shawn Schaefer from the N.D. Deer growers was invited. He worked at the coal mine from 11:00PM that night until 7:00AM headed for Bismarck. I was proud of him. The federal boyz were fresh and eager but Shawn gave as good as he got.

Plainsman, None of this stuff was cutting edge, professionalism or science. I sat next to a gentlemen who was wearing NRCS insignia. He was at these meetings for three days on the payroll. The room was full of people like him. He told me he was asked by his super if he wanted to attend and that he was being paid to attend. I didn't think to ask him if he was being paid directly by the wildlife society or if he was being paid the normal way to listen to this propaganda.

And then they brought out Dr. Valerius Geist. The thing that stood out most to me in his presentation was this. He was talking about the public trust doctrine. He said, " The management of wildlife should not rest with the legislature, it should be placed squarely in the hands of highly intelligent wildlife professionals."

Plainsman, I know a lot of people who work for the FSA, NRCS and other federal entities. They are good people who put in their eight hours like most of us. And then are those who join an organization so they can voice an opinion and be active outside of their jobs without conflict of interest. (your words)

What is it that you guys want? Control?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was at that meeting DG, and no one made fun of anyone. That just isn't professional, and they would be reprimanded if they did. I also seen the presentation by Shawn Schaefer and he was treated very politely. As I remember he got very few questions. I don't remember anything about an escaped buffalo.


> Plainsman, None of this stuff was cutting edge, professionalism or science.


I would say about 2/3 of it always is. Often graduate students are invited to present their masters and PhD thesis work. I would guess you just lack the professional training to have recognized that when you seen it. We also invite people from enforcement, or other organizations if they have information that may influence our thinking. I remember one fellow giving a presentation years ago from the stockmen's association. We were doing a burning and grazing study. We were looking for ways to increase waterfowl production, but grazing went so good that NDSU duplicated the study at Streeter. 
I was at that meeting which occurred at the Seven Seas in Mandan. I didn't see any people act with disrespect as you insinuate. None. Most of these people try to think of public relations when they are in public.


> What is it that you guys want? Control?


I think the proper control of wildlife begins with research. Research data should then be used to form the best management techniques possible. Then the people should be informed through public outlets and let their voice be known to the Game and Fish, U. S. Fish and Wildlife and their state representatives. Because wildlife is a public resource the public especially wildlife clubs, state Game and Fish departments and biologists should choose management strategies. Conflict of interest occurs in the political arena and wildlife should be managed as a resource for all the public. There are just to many people trying to manage wildlife with their pocket book the only beneficiary.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, Your statement "Because widlife is a public resource the public especially wildlife clubs, state Game and Fish departments and biologists should choose managemnet stratagies. " lacks the inclusion of one very important group, the people whose land this "public resource" lives and thrives on and that often times bears the brunt of any mismanagement..

On another comment regarding the NWF being the "parent org. of all our little local wildlife clubs" Do these clubs agree with the new direction your parent is taking in pursueing lawsuits to achieve their agenda? If not as affiliates what are you doing to change this policy?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Do these clubs agree with the new direction your parent is taking in pursueing lawsuits to achieve their agenda?

Not at all. When the national organization had a lawsuit over prairie dogs out NDWF apposed that.



> If not as affiliates what are you doing to change this policy?


Each local group sends a representative to the state meetings. As you might guess there is a multitude of opinions at these meetings, but like everything in a democracy majority rules. Even so a county in particular may oppose a state decision and our state organization often opposes the national organization. If you have strong feelings on matters before the local, state, or federal organization it's best a person speaks up. Complaining afterwards isn't as affective.



> Plainsman, Your statement "Because widlife is a public resource the public especially wildlife clubs, state Game and Fish departments and biologists should choose managemnet stratagies. " lacks the inclusion of one very important group, the people whose land this "public resource" lives and thrives on and that often times bears the brunt of any mismanagement..


Professionals should identify the options available. A great number of our citizens would have no idea how to manage a deer herd for example. Most of them think they do, few actually do. However, federal agencies and state agencies are required to allow months of public input. Public input from anyone who cares to comment. Those comments are expected from everyone. If you remember when the Forest Service about five years ago changed some of the things they do on the land they administer in North Dakota. About 90% of the people at those public input meetings were ranchers. I was there.

Oh, DG, no the Wildlife Society doesn't pay anyone at those meetings. People there pay out of their own wallet to attend. Most people have to take vacation time to attend. Some get paid by their agency if they are giving a presentation. Most biologists are required to publish and give scientific presentations so this is one outlet for them. I don't know about all presentations, but at least an abstract must be submitted for a scientific presentation.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, perhaps the groups comprising the NDWF should be a bit more public in the positions that are taken. As affiliates of a national org., or locals as part of a state org., if you do not directly oppose certain policy, you are by default supporting it.

The issue with the forrest service was in regards to changing grazing policy that had been a standard for years to something far beyond what even some biologists believed was necessary or beneficial. Not about the management of wildlife. Rarely if ever did the agency in charge of managing this states widlife ever voluntarily come to the states leading cattle org. to seek and actually listen to their input.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The issue with the forrest service was in regards to changing grazing policy that had been a standard for years to something far beyond what even some biologists believed was necessary or beneficial.


Yes I know, but my only point is any changes like this always has a time period for public input.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

So you think Shawn Schaefer was treated very politely and anything less would have been unprofessional. OK, but in the back of your minds, you guys at the wildlife society, knew you were going to unleash the fair chase committee on Shawn the deer and elk producers. But at least you were polite to his face.

In Feb. 2009 the wildlife society invited Joe Freidlander (environmental engineer) from the Freedom Coal Mine to speak. With this global warming cap and tax crap its the coal mines turn in the barrel. I know Joe nice guy. Let's just say I warned him about you guys and your politeness.

Plainsman, I still believe you want more control. If you are wildlife society than here is what they say:

http://ndctws.org/newsletters/2007-2-mar.pdf

Legislative (Randy Renner)-Mike 
McEnroe was hired as lobbyist. The 
Board also approved Bill Pfeiffer to 
volunteer on HB 1039. Mike is tracking 
69 bills, including 40 on wildlife issues, 
14 energy bills, and 15 on other 
issues. Mike reviewed several current 
pieces of legislation, including bills on 
baiting, revising deer tag prices, gratis 
tag allocation, offroad hunting, sovereign 
land management, high fence 
shooting, drilling in Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, reviewing the Flood 
Control Act, and biomass energy production. 
In all cases, the test of our 
Chapter's involvement in legislation is 
its impact on wildlife resources or the 
Game and Fish Department's ability to 
manage wildlife. Our preference is to 
see authority with Game and Fish 
rather than the legislature. We have 
testified on 9 out of 69 bills. The Committee 
meets at lunchtime on Fridays 
during the legislative session, and it 
gives direction to Mike on legislative 
issues. There is also a conservation 
lobbyist meeting at Game & Fish every 
Tuesday. There is a need to examine 
things we can do to better wildlife in 
the state rather than always being on 
the defensive. We held a legislative 
social last Tuesday night (attended by 
70-80 legislators) and are considering 
a lobbyist workshop in fall 2008.

Did you catch the part:

Our preference is to 
see authority with Game and Fish 
rather than the legislature.

I disagree. I like to read Safari Club International and National Rifle Association. Here is what they say:

Hunters have long embraced the precept that states are the sole managing authority of wildlife and hunting within their own borders. State politicians are much closer to the land and the people, and are best equipped to set the overall state policy framework for local hunting and conservation. State Game and Fish Agencies are empowered by state goverment to fill in the regulatory details, and use the best available science to justify their decisions and regulations. With some notable exceptions like waterfowl, which are covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty and thus subject to an overall federal regulatory framework, this model of management is fiercely defended by hunters and game managers.

These two organizations are good. They defend the process. The people draft bills etc. and take them to their representative. The bills are heard at the capitol and if it is a good bill it becomes law. If it is bad it doesn't. The power of the people through representative government. Why would the people give this right to some "highly intelligent wildlife professionals?"

Oh, one more thing. The Forest Service is under USDA or department of agriculture. Timber you know. But everyday the environmentalist are making our forest less and less about timber. Heard an ugly rumor it is being considered moving the Forest Service to the Dept. of Interior.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So you think Shawn Schaefer was treated very politely and anything less would have been unprofessional. OK, but in the back of your minds, you guys at the wildlife society, knew you were going to unleash the fair chase committee on Shawn the deer and elk producers. But at least you were polite to his face.


I don't think the Fair Chase Committee existed at that time. Also, I have no idea how the Fair Chase Committee came about. I always thought it started in the private sector.



> In Feb. 2009 the wildlife society invited Joe Freidlander (environmental engineer) from the Freedom Coal Mine to speak. With this global warming cap and tax crap its the coal mines turn in the barrel. I know Joe nice guy. Let's just say I warned him about you guys and your politeness.


Now that I can't address. I was not at that meeting and have no idea what was going on. If you have ever read the political form you know I think global warming is more of a political hammer. I think it's a natural process of which we have a small part. Who knows disrupting it may be going against nature, not the other way around.



> Plainsman, I still believe you want more control. If you are wildlife society than here is what they say:


Uuuuhg, I never read that whole thing when I get it. Page please. I just got up and that nearly put me back to sleep. 
Hey, this group is like any other group in society. Some real nice guys and some that are such kiss *** they never come up for air. Then there are some egos the size of Jupiter. 
No, I don't think government people should be in charge of as much as they are. I have mixed feelings about who should be in charge. I noticed someone thought the farmers should be asked. I don't think any one group should be asked, rather a farmer if he wishes should, and currently can express his opinion. 
The big problem with control is everyone has an agenda. I share you fear that some bunny hugging group may influence our biological arm of the government to much. I started in 1971 when nearly all biologists were hunters and outdoorsmen. Slowly I have seen that erode. I had a biologists complain that I talked hunting at the lunch table. I said go sit at the other table and talk knitting. Wow, people go ticked at me, but I am not going to shape my personal time to please some bunny huggers.
No absolutely do not let any government agency be totally in charge. However, I believe biological data should be respected. Today any group needs a biologist of their own to interpret the data because I would not trust data that has been statistically manipulated unless I could read it myself, and perhaps inspect the raw data. 
I don't want total control in government agencies because orders come from above. Also, money comes from above. Right now the global warming scientists are happy as flies on crap because with Obama in office they will get more money for research. Do you think they will find that global warming is a joke. No, I don't think so either. Maybe some of these guys are just milking the system. 
You hit on a pet peeve of mine. Federal people who forget they work for the taxpayer, not the fuzzy, round eyed, cut little animals. We work for the people. Our work for animals and natural resources without doubt benefits the animals and natural resources, but we do that at the direction of and for the benefit of the people. Nothing ticked me off more than arrogant people who didn't understand that. 
Control? Well here is how I think it should go. Biologists do the research and make management recommendations. Management recommendations should not be one recommendation, but three or four in descending order. Those who do the management should pick the one that best fits their area. When it comes to hunting seasons, and management that affects other segments of society they should all have a voice. Since hunters pay an 11% excise tax and have paid for the refuges, the habitat improvements, the rescue of endangered species, hunter safety, and the list goes on, I do think they should have the larger say in what happens. I often hear that we should have half as many buck license, or that we should have twice as many doe license. If hunters are happy shooting a 3X3 every year then manage for that. If the majority would be happier shooting a 5X5 every fifth year then manage for that. Government can provide research and management, but the goal should be chosen by the people.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, Your last post came in while I was typing so this firstpart was added. In regards to your statement because hunters pay an 11% tax on sporting goods they should have a larger say in this equation, the people whose land these animals live and thrive on and that are expected to keep open to the public so they can be properly managed, often times have a cost much higher than this inclusatory level that you claim for the sportsman. From a knowledge and understanding aspect of the affects of management of game, it is my humble unprofessional opinion that in most cases the people that are actually living on these lands often times have a better handle on these affects of management than most of the hunting public and even some professional biologists whose theories are often times only that. 
This type of suggestion is actually part of the problem in landowner/hunter symbiosis. (hey Dick how was that!!) ie... Someone that is using these privately owned lands in a recreational pursuit should have a greater say than the actual owner of the land that is making a living from it. The other kicker people seem to forget, is that the farmer/rancher is also a "sportsman" that pays this 11% tax as well on their sporting goods! I also personally know farmers and ranchers that have spent thousands of dollars privately establishing habitat,restoring wetlands ect... that benefit this public resource. So under your theory being their commitment to the picture is perhaps larger than an individual hunter, shouldn't they have the larger say??

From a federal level MOST times there is a public comment period( not so much with this heritage area declaration) but at the state level when things are left to the "professionals" often times allowance for public input doesn't happen as much if at all unless it is being channeled thru the legislative process.

And in regards to the NWF's lawsuit to delay or in some cases stop the haying and grazing of CRP last year, this was the cause used to accomplish thier agenda thru the use of a lawsuit. So as someone that has studied the effects of the above mentioned practice, is there a need for a 90 day public comment period in regards to the affects of emergency haying and grazing CRP, knowing this will effectively end the time period that will allow this to happen? Or is this tactic merely an end run around the long established guidelines that worked for everyone involved in one orgs attempt to accomplish their agenda once again regardless of cost?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So as someone that has studied the effects of the above mentioned practice, is there a need for a 90 day public comment period in regards to the affects of emergency haying and grazing CRP, knowing this will effectively end the time period that will allow this to happen? Or is this tactic merely an end run around the long established guidelines that worked for everyone involved in one orgs attempt to accomplish their agenda once again regardless of cost?


I don't have any more idea than you do. It is ridiculous that these things are not spelled out and settled ahead of time. Perhaps there are just attorneys with nothing better to do than upset the apple cart.

I do see a problem with the emergency haying. This is the problem: some ranchers have increased their heard and rely on emergency use. That is no more right than the small guy who really does have an emergency getting cheated out of hay from his own land. Again, I can only give my opinion. Land without management isn't as productive as habitat after a few years. For some land that can be three years, for other soil types with different vegetation that can be five years. Haying can be used to benefit the habitat, but grazing can work better if not abused. I think a perfect scenario would be to allow haying of 1/5 of the land each year on a rotational basis. Or moderate grazing of 1/3 of the land every three years on a rotation basis. Grazing intensity would be established at 75% of carrying capacity as determined by an estimated ton's per acre and vegetation nutrition.

So what do you think of that scenario? I think CRP benefits all of society. It provides income and increases land value for the farmers. It provides habitat for wildlife and hunting opportunities for sportsmen. Most importantly it reduces erosion, and increases land fertility for the benefit of the following generations of farmers and consumers. Also, taking land out of production reduces surplus and increases farm income by raising prices through the market. When I grew up we had much of our farm in Soil Bank. I was impressed with that as a child and still am today.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, I don't know if you caught it, I added to the last post. Back to this response. These things were actually "spelled out ahead of time". And attorneys have to be hired to do the upsetting. Many of the ranchers that may have increased their herds did so with the understanding there would be allowed grazing or haying of 1/3 of the contract every 3 years on these lands as well as emergency declarations. This established allowance in these contracts was subsequently changed because of lawsuits filed by a wildlife org. who had little or no input from or concern for the producer who owned the land. 
What no one seems to understand or be willing to accept is that grazing is done on a very much more restricted level, and haying is only allowed on 50% of a contracts acres. So yes, under these guidelines CRP actually did benefit "all of society". Ranchers got much needed hay and sportsmen still had 1/2 or 2/3s of the "habitat" left on the contracted acres. (Some neg. to the ag community can be attributed, higher rental rates, fewer people on the land, fewer inputs sold ect...).However the "parent" org. of these state groups of sportsmen was allowed to change all of that to suit their agenda without any regards to the cost, with lawsuits which are still ongoing and now these sportsmen can't understand why these CRP acres are disappearing!!????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst I got this from one of the state NDWF reps.



> The Fair Chase group formed separately and independently from TWS. As to the NWF filing a lawsuit on grazing, the purpose of delaying grazing and haying is to allow birds to hatch their broods. The North Dakota Wildlife Federation supports the use of managed grazing and haying as part of wildlife management practices. In fact, many overgrown CRP fields could use a good mowing, prescribed burn or grazing to reinvigorate the grass. It just makes no sense to hay CRP when the birds are still on their nests or have young that can't get out of the way of a mower.


As I understand it some organizations got data from government biologists through the freedom of information act. CRP could not meet the Government Accounting Office cost benefit ratio. These groups used that data to lobby for the inclusion of wildlife benefits added to the CRP. With those added benefits the cost benefit ratio was met and new life was breathed into CRP. That is why wildlife is now given consideration. Without that consideration CRP would not exist. Freedom to do as a landowner wishes still exists because they can sign up or decline CRP. No one holds a gun to their head.

gst you will find biologists that agree with you and those that disagree with you. With their data and public input there should be some common ground on CRP. Wildlife and hunters need private landt. Farmers and ranchers need tax dollars today to support a tough industry to make it in. Someone mentioned a symbiotic relationship, and I can think of no better example than hunters and land owners.

Now what the heck was the original topic? :homer:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

So this statement is apparently saying that even though at least 50% of the contract acres are being left untouched for these young birds and nests, this is still not good enough even though the individual that owns this land maybe in dire need of this hay to keep their operation going and "makes no sense to hay CRP" ???? Apparently it is an all or nothing stance being taken rather than a little give and take? And yet no one can see where this policy or attitude is contributing to CRP acres being taken out of these contracts????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Give and take? I think what the guy was saying was that he is all for haying or grazing, just put off haying by two weeks so the birds have a chance to get off. I know that if my relatives simply put the CRP last there is no hold up at all. By the time they finish they haying ground they have they already meet the slight time suspension criteria. 
Some people make it sound like they are being denied total use of their land. That's not so at all. Two weeks is not a big deal. A lot depends on the species of grass you plant. If you know the contract will not let you hay until July 15 why would you plant an early season grass? Cheaper seed maybe, but that's your choice.



> Now what the heck was the original topic?


 :homer:

You know on the original topic many were agreeing. I thanked people for bringing that to our attention. It would appear that people got off topic simply because they wanted something to whine about. This has been hashed over and over before. Nothing has changed. Some still keep exaggerating the control they don't have over their land the taxpayer is supporting. I say your biting the hand that feeds you. Is there some advantage to creating a conflict on this that I am missing?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman,Your quote, "I say your biting the hand that feeds you." Wildlife groups changing the parameters of haying and grazing and wanting to restrict it completely (latest NWF lawsuit) and then "whining about" CRP contracts not being renewed and the negative affects this will have on wildlife numbers and hunting opportunities and ultimately end up losing hunting opportunities because of the actions some take in regards to these issues may fall under this catgory as well. 
As too what changing restrictions many landowners are opposed to and how they negatively affect them, you apparently don't or are not willing to understand. Out of the I believe 50 some types of CRP contracts avalible to enroll land under only a handful actually do allow any haying or grazing anymore, wether managed or emergency, much different than the intent behind the agreements most producers originally entered into at the start of this program. Many contracts that at one time did allow haying or grazing,not EVER more than 50 %(CP23 contracts for 1 example) do not now because of the influence wildlife groups had in their management. So in some cases yes producers "are being denied total use of their land" thru their signing these contracts. And yes there have been a number of occassions that 2 weeks have made a substantial difference in not only quantity but quality. In the lawsuit being discussed, it was a substantially longer time frame than 2 weeks haying and grazing were delayed.

Your statement "No one holds a gun to their head" is true in regards to signing up acres into the CRP program. What I am saying in my comments and what you and many others don't seem either willing to grasp or admit to is that the willingness by some of these wildlife orgs to use the tactics they do to further restrict the parameters of this program are a large part of what is driving many producers to choose not to participate. And yet as these wildlife groups "whine about" the "loss of critical habitat", they don't seem to realize their actions are a large part of what is driving this. If you are willing to take a step back from a blind advocacy position, this is really quite easy to see and realize. If as a state org. this is realized, perhaps more should be being done than what is to convince the national "parent" as to the negative affects sportsmen here in ND directly feel. If these local and state wildlife groups put as much time and effort into this side of the issue as they do some of their other projects, perhaps there wouldn't be the perception out there that they are merely giving lip service to their claim of non support while it continues to happen. If you cannot understand that particularily under the stress of the factors involving an emergency declaration that producers (that own the land) face and how they would not become frustrated when willing to leave well over 50% of these acres for wildlife(nesting and young birds) untouched for the entire season, they are told by wildlife groups and sportsmen this is not enough I don't think you will ever understand the producers veiwpoint on this.

At least for me this is less about "creating a conflict" as you suggest than it is possibly opening some eyes as well as minds and dialogue to the fact sportsmen themselves may play a larger part then they realize in the loss of CRP acres and the affects due to this they are concerned about!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't think that anyone misunderstand the point your making or argues with it. With many restrictions there will be less CRP. Everyone knows that. My point was CRP would not exist if wildlife benefits had not been added to the cost benefit ratio. Therefore wildlife and habitat must be considered. The government simply didn't want to waste money. If they continued down the road they had been on it would simply be a welfare program. There has to be benefits. The landowner can not be the only beneficiary. It has to have other benefits.

So the problem is very simple. We just have to figure out what amount of landowner control is tolerant, and for the landowners what amount of habitat and wildlife benefits they are willing to tolerate. This level will not be of satisfaction to the preservationists, or the landowner milking the system, but it will be defined by the majority of the people. Then the landowner will have to decide if it's worth signing up or not. Like I said "there is no gun to anyones head".

What is it you expect? Do you want sportsmen and taxpayers to support your point of view when CRP is most often posted? What do we get in return, and ataboy? We have many different opinions, and not all are going to be happy. However, every person will make a decision that benefits them the most. Everyone wants all they can get. What is in it for the average Joe? You want to hay and graze, and get paid. What are you willing to give? What is the carrot your willing to offer in return for tax dollar agriculture support?


----------



## drakespanker12 (Aug 28, 2006)

no comprende.....but i like to hunt


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

You make much to do about the Pitt-Robertson Act and the 11% tax on sporting goods. This money goes a long way but it isn't elastic. There is taxpayer money involved.

In 2000 Congress in D.C. heard the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) It was worth 40 billion earmarked for wildlife conservation from money to be derived from existing royalties on outer continental shelf drilling leases. Rep. Helen Chenoweth warned that much of this money would find its way into the hands of (NGOs) or nonprofit nongovernmental organizations who would use it for mischeif in the name of sportsman and or sportsmens groups. It failed but a version nicknamed CARA lite passed later. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the Teaming With Wildlife Act is it. It is posted at:

http://www.teaming.com/2009_Fly_in_Day/ ... 0Sheet.pdf

The Teaming With Wildlife Act would amend the Pittman-
Robertson Act to ensure adequate funding for the conservation
and restoration of all species through funding of the Wildlife
Conservation and Restoration Program.
A total of $350 million would be deposited in the account annually for five years deriving 50% of the revenue from existing royalties on outer continental shelf drilling and 50% from existing revenues collected under the Mineral Leasing Act.
Since drilling and mining use an irreplaceable natural
resource, investment of some of these royalties to fund fish and
wildlife conservation will ensure there are long-term benefits
to future generations who enjoy fish and wildlife.

Plainsman, If this money is being diverted from the general treasury than all the people are stakeholders. No one group and it's affiliates should have a monopoly on its use.

So now you don't know how the fair chase committee came about and think it started in the private sector. You are deflective spinning.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, if you don't mind, I'll try to answer your questions.

"I don't think anyone misunderstands the point you are making and argues with it." 
Now this is a big comment here that I want to make sure I understand. You are saying that yes the wildlife orgs themselves with the continued restrictions being placed on usage of private lands enrolled in CRP is largely responsible for this "demise" of the CRP program???

" You want to hay and graze and get paid?" 
This happened I believe only once or twice in the 23 years CRP has been around, and no I don't agree with it I believe there should be a reduction in payment as there has been.

"What are you willing to give", 
Take away all the private land in ND and tell me what you would have left for wildlife, habitat, and hunting opportunities ????

"What is the carrot your willing to offer in return for tax dollar agricultural support" 
I like this comment!!! Simply the cheapest, safest, most readily avalible, widest variety of food of any country on this earth. The most misguided belief is that farm subsidy payments are soley for the benefit of the producer. If they are allocated back to the savings they generate for consumers over what they would have to pay in most other countries, this figure dwarfs the actual amount producers recieve. Are you aware by far the largest portion of the dollars alocated to the USDA farm program goes to WIC and the Food Stamp programs. 
Now many people in agriculture, myself included, would like nothing better than for govt to get out of our industries, but because of the CONSUMER, this will likely never happen.

Can you please share some actual facts or documents showing here how CRP could not meet the GAO's cost benefit ratio until wildlife was added. Then explain how the inclusion of wildlife in terms of actual dollars made this cost benefit ratio happen.

Plainsman these last few comments you made are heard quite often from people that take the food they eat as well as the hunting opportunities they have for granted.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So now you don't know how the fair chase committee came about and think it started in the private sector. You are deflective spinning.


Fair Chase started with sportsmen, farmers, biologists, policemen, teachers etc. It is not any government agency. I'm conservative myself, but your seeing the boogie man in every shadow. As I understand they formed for one thing and only one, to file a pettition to bring High Fence Hunts to a vote. After that they plan to disolve.



> There is taxpayer money involved.


Oh, I know that, but it isn't involved in the Wildlife Society. That is private funding by members. That report you sent, did you see the contributions towards the auction?



> In 2000 Congress in D.C. heard the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) It was worth 40 billion earmarked for wildlife conservation from money to be derived from existing royalties on outer continental shelf drilling leases.


What are they doing setting up a fund in the event of another Exxon Valdez?



> Rep. Helen Chenoweth warned that much of this money would find its way into the hands of (NGOs) or nonprofit nongovernmental organizations who would use it for mischeif in the name of sportsman and or sportsmens groups.


I worry about that with all federal funding.



> It failed but a version nicknamed CARA lite passed later. Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the Teaming With Wildlife Act is it. It is posted at:


I don't know much about Teaming With Wildlife other than it upsets you. If it's a conservation effort great. If they change the Pittman Roberts Act I don't like it because I don't want any bunny hugging efforts stealing from sportsmen. I hope your more sure about that than you were about the following: 


> American Fisheries Society 1869
> Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 1902. Founded by state agencies. All State agencies belong to this association, they are the lead group for Teaming with Wildlife.
> Association of Zoos and Aquariums 1924
> Izaak Walton League of America 1922 Sportsmen founded
> ...


It would appear your trying to link everything with Teaming With Wildlife, and make them out to be a radical group. I don't know much about them, but I think I will check it out.

You followed that with:


> OOPS!
> 
> My bad, I was thinking of two, The Wildlife Society (1937) and National Wildlife Federation (1936) when I posted that.


Yes it was your bad, and your also wrong about The Wildlife Society and the National Wildlife Federation. To think FDR started those is a laugh. If you can't get that straight how can I follow this convoluted path your going down? You have gone in so many circles that I am to confused to follow your points.

Lets just get back to the original subject. HSUS in your bank ---- maybe.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, I believe this thread got of topic after you asked about the radical new regulatory czar appointment and you replied to my suggestion that this was an opportunity for sportsmen as well as agriculture to work together for everyones benefit in somewhat of a less than cooperative manner. Now if you don't want to address my last post, in which I answered your questions I can understand :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, I believe this thread got of topic after you asked about the radical new regulatory czar appointment and you replied to my suggestion that this was an opportunity for sportsmen as well as agriculture to work together for everyones benefit.


Ahhhh, thank you. Yes, I had forgotten that.

Was this the point your talking about?



> Plainsman these last few comments you made are heard quite often from people that take the food they eat as well as the hunting opportunities they have for granted.


Maybe we are taking each other for granted. I do appreciate a good ribeye. I also am thankful for the tens of thousands of acres I have to hunt. If it wasn't for that I would promote getting my food costs down by dropping the protection from imports. Come on Canada bring down the wheat. Minnesota has milk too. South America has beef, and so does Australia, but I support you guys because I get to hunt. If this all comes down to money and being neighbors means nothing then what other reason to support agriculture than hunting opportunities?

By the way, I don't take my food for granted, my hunting opportunities for granted, or anything else in life. I doubt you take ag support for granted either, but some fit all of the above descriptions. It's just that the posts about CRP and everything made me think the landowners want their cake and eat it too. None of my relatives who farm think like the above posts. Over the last year since our debates on here I have talked to many landowners and most are not as pessimistic about CRP. Most understand it's a choice, and can live with that. I guess it's a business like any other business, but with more support prices. I would rather pay the support price though because that the farmer gets instead of every other business between the wheat field and the bakery.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

I know after electing Al Franken Minnesota has moved way off in left field, but I still don't think it would be importing their milk!!!!

Brazilian ethanol is much cheaper, canadian steel is much cheaper, ect....these would help to lower my costs. Many tariffs support the consumer more so than just the producer.

Many landowners that have CRP contracts do not have cattle so the opportunity to hay or graze is a mute point to them. And even ranchers in the SE part of our state where drought is not so prevalent and the necessity to hay CRP is not such a factor are less concerned. But believe me for many others in many areas it is a concern.

The simple fact is there is an increasing number of people that do take for granted the benefits they do recieve from what these farmers and ranchers do as more and more people become disconnected from the land. And these peoples attitudes and expectations have changed as to what they have a right to. Wildlife MAY be considered a public resource, but in this state a majority of the land they live and thrive on and that people want to hunt on is not. Forgetting that causes problems that benefits no one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I know after electing Al Franken Minnesota has moved way off in left field, but I still don't think it would be importing their milk!!!!


No we in North Dakota could import Minnesota milk. Leevers grocery was fined just a couple of years ago for doing that. There are laws on the books protecting North Dakota dairy farmers.



> Brazilian ethanol is much cheaper, canadian steel is much cheaper, ect....these would help to lower my costs. Many tariffs support the consumer more so than just the producer.


I'm not saying I would do it. You said I take my food for granted, which I do not. However, it sounds like your saying I would starve without you. The only point I was making is that I support agriculture or not only would I not starve, but I could buy it cheaper.



> But believe me for many others in many areas it is a concern.


When it becomes a big enough concern they will not sign up for CRP. Problem solved.



> The simple fact is there is an increasing number of people that do take for granted the benefits they do recieve from what these farmers and ranchers do as more and more people become disconnected from the land.


I agree, and many farmers take our tax dollars for granted. All I am saying is it works both ways. Landowners and hunters are both small segments of society. Divided the rest will have easy pickings destroying what we have today.



> And these peoples attitudes and expectations have changed as to what they have a right to.


That's true of all people. Do you think you have a right to ag support?



> Wildlife MAY be considered a public resource, but in this state a majority of the land they live and thrive on and that people want to hunt on is not. Forgetting that causes problems that benefits no one.


It's not that it's just a public resource. If the GAO had not added wildlife to the cost benefit ratio you would not have CRP. However, when the GAO added wildlife as a value they made wildlife resources a consideration within the program. Like it or not people who manage wildlife, hunters, animal lovers in general now all have a say in what you can do with that CRP. If you don't like it don't enroll. It's not just a handout, it comes with restrictions and rules. People know that when they sign the bottom line. The problem arises when they sign the bottom line while at the same time plotting ways around the rules. It's not unlike the landowner that takes a payment for a wetland easement in the morning and is out draining it in the afternoon, and that really happened.

I guess I don't understand the debate. Everyone knows the rules. I have to live by many. Don't you think landowners should be exempt from that? I don't expect them to be subject to surprise changes, or live by rules no one else has to, but I expect the same from them as everyone else. That's all.

In ending I don't think you guys will be able to strong arm people into submitting. I will admit your future doesn't look to bright. With guys like Sunstein as regulator czar the writing is on the wall. I'll bet the High Fence hunts will go away nation wide. I really don't think I need debate that anymore. You can also look forward to a lot more regulations. I would not be surprised if farmers were GS5 government employees in the not to distant future. I'll fight it every step of the way. Good luck.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Plainsman,

There are too many wolves in the rockies, water rights issues in Colorado, prairie dog wars in South Dakota, spotted owls, grazing on Forrest Service lands, the baiting ban, high fence, and CRP to name a few. It takes alot of money to fight all these battles. My point: The money doesn't come from dues, bake sales, auctions or raffle tickets!!!

TWS and NWF were not created by FDR per se but durring the FDR administration.

FDR said, "Nothing in politics happens by accident, you can bet it was planned that way."

Plainsman, I have to admit you are a worthy opponent. Not a word mechanic. (grin)


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

So Plainsman, the next time some one comments on this site about the devasating lack of acres in CRP and how it is affecting wildlife and their hunting, can I assume you will tell that person to quit complaining? Because the wildlife inclusion in CRP because of the GAO necessity and the restrictions sportsmen orgs placed on it is what contributed to producers choosing not to re-enroll acres?????? Because many producers are making this choice. Or will it be simply pawned off onto the "greed" of these producers?

Not saying anyone would starve, but without govt subsidies and controls you would be paying a much higher price for your food. So what do you believe the consumer/ sportsmen is recieving for this gvmt subsidy of agriculture? And what do you believe it should give them? Perhaps you can buy food items cheaper from China, Mexico, ect.. with the understanding the safety will not be what you are accustomed to. I'm sure there are a few dogs that would much rather ate US rather than 
Chinese dog food. If that is a trade you want to make, many other consumers don't.

I'm glad to hear you don't take your food for granted, many do. The point I'm making that you don't seem to understand is these "tax dollars" that go towards your "government subsidies" ultimately benefit the consumer as much as the producer, so when someone holds them over our heads as a reason or right to hunt, that person clearly does not fully understand the full basis or affects of this nations cheap food policies.

Once again please share some document that shows that without inclusion of wildlife into the CRP program the GAO would have ended this program, beyond some biologists theory or lobbying. And what real dollars wildlife put back into this program to make it sustainable.

Your statement "I don't expect them to be subject to surprise changes" is exactly the point I've been trying to make. I don't think many landowners including your relatives would have envisioned groups like the NWF sueing to change the parameters of a largely agriculture based program that they originally agreed to to one where wildlife and sportsmens needs trump those of the producer that owns the land..

Now back to the comment that may have diverted this thread, How many sportmen do you believe have called our legislators asking them to block this appointment for the good of BOTH hunting and agriculture???? I have, have you?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I have, have you?


Yes

And as I said in my last post:


> In ending


This could turn into a ten page thread that isn't worth it. It's been done before over and over.

I will answer one last question. I don't know about the documentation of GAO adding wildlife values. I do know many biologists that had to give up data to organizations who filed under the Freedom of Information Act. In those Freedom of Information Act requests they stated that the information would be used to lobby the GAO to add wildlife values because the CRP program failed the first go around. Those organizations were successful.

Since this simply goes in circles I think it will only get more contentious and that's not fun, it's more like work. I am retired and can now officially not like work.  After thought: Actually I think I only liked work from 1980 to 1993. I had a supervisor that was a kind and honest man. It was a pleasure busting my chops for him. I always thought I would take him fishing and thing when I retired. He didn't live long enough. Sometimes life sucks.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, you are much more willing to engage in courteous and constructive dialogue and actually answer questions than some on here and I appreciate that. I do have 2 favors if you would. If you would please just answer one last question. The first one that was posed in my last post, and then if you can the following.

The reason I was asking for some type of documentation on the GAO and CRP failing without wildlife theory, is because I have never once heard DU or PF or NWF or any of the other wildlife orgs. use this as reasoning in any of their arguments concerning wildlife and CRP. So I would like to know more about this if you can please provide some more facts for us on this site. There must be a govt or wildlife group website link somewhere that can be posted to thouroughly explain how CRP failed from a cost benefit analysis with the GAO because of it's agriculture basis .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'll take a shot at one more. Is this the one?



> So Plainsman, the next time some one comments on this site about the devasating lack of acres in CRP and how it is affecting wildlife and their hunting, can I assume you will tell that person to quit complaining?


No, I would perhaps think they didn't understand what happened and would try to explain it to them. As I have said before I would support a program that allowed grazing dependent upon species planted and number of AUM's it would support. I would also support haying. I see grazing and haying as management tool and would support it on none emergency years. The NWF also supports grazing and haying of CRP. I would encourage them to call their congressman as I have. I would also call my congressman and encourage two payment systems. One for posted CRP, and one for open to the public CRP. Since this is such a contentious point perhaps a graduated payment system would solve the debate. I'm always looking for things that will alleviate conflict and make both sides happy if that's possible.

Now I will hold you to your word of one last question, but look forward to other discussion in the future. I hope it's something new.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, I'll let you off the hook on having to answer anymore questions, because it doesn't seem as if you are willing to look at this from anything outside of a very narrow wildlife biologist/hunters perspective. But I do have to hold you accountable to provide some proof of your statements in regards to the GAO comments about CRP and USDA's plan of ending it without wildlife inclusions. If you cannot provide the proof for your statement regarding this, you will probably fall into the same type catagory as Dick and a couple others on here.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> If you cannot provide the proof for your statement regarding this, you will probably fall into the same type catagory as Dick and a couple others on here.


Nice try at the character assassination. That's poor. As far as proof of that I would not have the least idea where to look. I would guess I would have to file a freedom of information act to get the requests with the statements what they were for on them. You can do that if your serious and not just bs-ing me. Go for it. Seriously. Start by calling someone on the ag committee that can point you in the right direction. Perhaps the Nature Conservancy could also help.

You know gst, I keep asking myself "why doesn't gst appreciate hearing from my experiences on the inside". The only answer I can come up with is that you already know, but you don't want anyone else to know. Hmmm

The reason I decided to stop in this thread is because your looking at it from only a landowner perspective. It's abundantly clear to me that we will come to no consensus so why continue? I will however not take a below the belt parting shot as you have. Poor, and it shows me I made a wise decision breaking of the conversation.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Actually plainsman, you have missed the intent of what you percieve as a below the belt, poor parting shot to assasinate your character. In our discussions, you have most always been very courteous and have most times answered questions asked and have at least in our conversations not made statements that are not factual to the best of my knowledge. And I have tried to do the same. So I would think that you would like to provide the information that will back up this claim that without the inclusion of wildlife into CRP it was a dead in the water program based off a GAO analysis of it's agriculture based value. I was not the one that made this claim, so I don't feel it should fall on my shoulders to provide the information to verify a statement of fact you made. If you choose to go down the path that some on here have of making statements as fact then not providing the information to back them up when asked, you will lose the respect I actually have had in our discussions for your opinions from this inside, retired, USF&W biologists perspective, which many times is not the same as mine. If you do feel that being included in a group with Dick and a couple others from this site who like to post comments, not back up their claims, and not answer questions when asked, would be an assasination to your character, at least you are on the right side of that line of thinking.

Not one time have I ever heard this claim used by any wildlife org in regards to CRP. So please provide the information that will substantiate what you claim.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your not understanding gst. I don't know if the information exists, I just know what happened from the inside. I am not going to file a freedom of information act and tick off people I have worked with. I hope you catch on to this hint. I did give you a big hint where to get the information. Contact Nature Conservancy and ask them if they lobbied to include wildlife values. 
No, I don't consider it an insult to be with Dick, but I do know what you guys think and that's an insult. If you really are interested you will look. I am not going to put that much effort into it. It may take several weeks and I'm not that interested to prove something I already know. If you want to use this point to attack my character have at it. Most on here know me well enough that I don't think you will damage me much. However, if that's your intent have at it.
I think you want to haul me down into a never ending pissing match, but that's not my game.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, If I were to do as you suggest and contact the NC and ask if they lobbied to include wildlife interests in the CRP program I would hear what I already know. Yes. Why exactly would you " tick off people you worked with off" by filing a freedom of information request???

You make a statement that a GAO administration decision involving a USDA agriculture program on a cost analysis basis determined that unless wildlife interests were included the entire ag based CRP program would have been ended, and you simply want everyone to take your word for it??????? No other wildlife org., PF, DU, even the NWF that is sueing the pants off USDA to expand their wildlife influence on this program has ever publically made this statement and you want everyone to take your word this happened ??? No Ag orgs have ever stated that without the inclusion of wildlife considerations the GAO would have required USDA to end the CRP signups, and you want us to take your word for it???

Of course the Nature Conservancy lobbied to have wildlife interests included along with several other wildlife orgs. on their own and as a coalition (TRCP). And becasue of their conections and lobbying powers wildlife has began to overshadow agricultures role in the "new" CRP program. If these orgs. want landowners to agree to these expanded "wildlife based guidelines"and enroll their lands in these programs where by they give up more and more control of their lands, they will have to encourage this thru economics. If not maybe this will be a clue if these acres once enrolled are not put back into the program at the end of their contracts as to why this is happening.

What I am saying is perhaps wildlife groups should consider the possibility that positons and tactics some of their own are undertaking in an attempt to "save" CRP may very well be contributing to it's decline in acres. If you or no one else involved in these groups are willing to consider this possibility, you may very well deserve what you get. And if landowners are foolish enough to allow more and more regulations and enroll acres into programs that give up control of access onto their private lands for a few dollars, perhaps we deserve what we would get as well.

So choose to provide the proof to backup this claim regarding CRP or it will not be given much credibily. No intent to damage your character on my behalf, just to have factual statements that can be proven in discussions I participate in.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:55 am Post subject:

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

From Farm Journal

Betrayed by Our Conservation Partners 
11/1/2008 
The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and other environmental groups who successfully sued to 
prevent the release of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land for emergency haying and grazing have jeopardized a beneficial partnership.

CRP would never have existed if environmental groups and farmers had not tried to understand each other and agreed to work together. I know that's true because I helped build the ag/environmental partnership that led to CRP becoming part of the farm bill in 1985, and I've been involved with the partnership ever since.

Before that, relations between the farm and environmental communities were not always smooth. Now, actions like the CRP lawsuit, in which a special-interest group unilaterally interrupts something good for agriculture, will reinsert mistrust in the relationship and move us backward.

Not only was the environmentalists' lawsuit ill-conceived, it also was poorly timed. I and many other farmers had already installed fencing around the CRP acres we intended to graze. That's just money thrown away-on top of the additional cost of forage for our animals.

Sadly, the lawsuit that prevented haying and grazing of CRP also may have detrimental effects for the wildlife the environmental groups think they are protecting.

Haying helps habitat. From a wildlife perspective, the best thing that could happen to many CRP grasslands would be occasional haying or grazing. Ideally, native grasses-which are planted in many CRP fields-should be burned occasionally for their own good. That is nature's way of revitalizing prairies, keeping native grass stands vigorous and free of invasive species. But burning is impractical, as well as expensive. The next best way to revitalize stands is haying or grazing, which creates better feed and cover for wildlife in the years ahead. 
Our environmental partners have shown they fail to understand this. Nor do they understand that farmers must deal with all natural resources-air, water, weeds, plants, animals and biodiversity.

Perhaps most significant, the wildlife and environmental communities don't understand that farmers and ranchers have to make a living. Many needed this one-time supplement to the livestock feeding program because of exceptionally high feed prices and a very dry West. 
This intervention is not likely to put anyone out of business, but it could be detrimental to wildlife. With commodity prices finally above the break-even level, actions like this could be the indicator farmers need to move out of the CRP program, causing wildlife to lose valuable habitat.

Farmers and ranchers who were counting on forage harvested from some-and only some-of their CRP acres feel betrayed. Working with agriculture to utilize these CRP acres intermittently for the long-term benefit of farmers, wildlife and all other resources would have served both farmers and wildlife much better.

Who owns the land? NWF has revealed itself to be misguided, self-serving and ignorant, forgetting that CRP acres, in the final analysis, belong to farmers. It and other environmental "partners" have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the ecosystem and what farmers, ranchers and forestland owners and operators deal with on a daily basis.

Yes, the wildlife belongs to everyone, but they live under my roof. They look to me for feed and cover, not to NWF. It is my hay they share with my livestock in the winter when snow covers their normal range areas. It is my grain in upland bird feeders that helps them through rough winters like the one we experienced last year. The ponds and riparian areas are ones that I developed for waterfowl to use and share with other wildlife.

I have spent more than 35 years promoting conservation programs, and it saddens me to see one as successful as CRP hijacked by a special-interest organization. It grieves me to say it, but I urge all farmers to consider not re-enrolling their CRP acreage when it expires and to not enroll any more acres in the program.

Our so-called partners, such as NWF, have shown they are not to be trusted. They have demonstrated they couldn't care less about farmers and their survival.

Another partner, USDA, also has failed us by not anticipating potential challenges to the emergency haying and grazing announcement and by not reacting quickly and decisively to counter the injunction that resulted. Farmers and ranchers now wonder which clientele the agency exists to serve-farmers or wildlife.

America's farmers, ranchers and private forestland owners will continue to be generous caretakers of the land that has been entrusted to us for a short period of time. We will continue to share our bounty with the 70% of our nation's wildlife that makes its home on America's private lands. We were caring for wildlife long before these self-anointed saviors of wildlife, and we will be there tomorrow, with or without CRP.

I don't do business with people who don't know or don't care about the public benefits my farm brings to 
everyone and everything. From now on, when it comes to CRP and NWF, count me out.

Plainsman, The only thing I would change in this article is the heading:
To read: Betrayed by Federal Conservation Partners


----------



## sosegado (Jan 31, 2011)

> No.3 Cody Marthaller from the humane society in Fargo blabbed around town he was in contact with Roger K.


So I googled my name for the fun of it and I found this posted. First off, what in the world are you talking about. Assuming you are referring to me and I don't believe there is another Cody Marthaller in the Fargo-Moorhead area. I am not apart of the humane society nor did I "blab around town" in regards to the subject you are referring to. So my question is again, what are you talking about and why is my name posted on this forum? Please remove my name from your post as it is obviously false.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I do not know if you are a member or not but a quick search for your name sure makes you look like you are a member. On a side note Steven Seagal. Really?

Chuck Norris was once in a knife fight, and the knife lost.


----------



## bodatx2 (Mar 29, 2006)

Cheaper ethanol from brazil would not benefit farmers. All those millions upon millions of acres in corn would have to be replaced with other crops, thus dropping those prices again. Subsidies do make the food cheaper for the consumers, but the money for those subsidies should be coming out of our pockets to begin with. So in a way money is being taken from the consumer right away, only to benefit in cheaper prices later. So I feel like i am just making a down payment on something I receive at a later date. That was a quote from my nephew, one of those things that make you say hmmmm. Anyway...CRP I have never enrolled any acres into CRP, and guess what, I do not worry about the obligations or restrictions that go with the Contract. For those of you landowners that have CRP you should understand the concerns that taxpayers, and yes some of those taxpayers are hunters and sportsmen, have regarding your obligations with CRP. Most CHOSE to enroll at a time when it was beneficial to them, you had a choice. Believe that wildlife and the environment were a big part of CRP, otherwise it would be another form of welfare, I believe someone said that earlier and it makes perfect sense.


----------

