# Do farmers support habitat?



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

When I was out for early goose in September, I noticed many
dried sloughs plowed up or cut down. We also noticed that 
several had the buck brush completely mowed down.

I asked a friend that is a retired farmer and he stated since
it is dry, it is called reclaiming the land. I asked about all
the cattails being cut and the loss of habitat. He just shock
his head and stated better to be back in production.

Is this a common trend? Anyone else see this activity?


----------



## water_swater (Sep 19, 2006)

Farmers support their families, they are not in the business to raise ducks and geese, they are there to make a living first and foremost. Obviously their are differences in opinions but thats the most basic fact, personall I dont get too worked out, disking a slough to me is like burning a prairie or forest, every few years its a good thing, especially of the sloughs are too overgrown.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

water_swater said:


> Farmers support their families, they are not in the business to raise ducks and geese, they are there to make a living first and foremost. Obviously their are differences in opinions but thats the most basic fact, personall I dont get too worked out, disking a slough to me is like burning a prairie or forest, every few years its a good thing, especially of the sloughs are too overgrown.


The first part you are right, but what ever gave you the idea of disking a slough was a good thing? Wetlands store carbon, when you disk it you release tons of carbon per acre into the atmosphere. Our number one atmospheric contaminant. I'll agree on the prairie, and even some of the forest burns, but not at all with disking a wetland. That is extremely destructive.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

if you can disk a slough you can get it into the farm program and make some money off it even in wet years there after... thats why.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

I saw over a dozen different sloughs that were plowed under,
all of them had cattails. The total acreage was less than 20.
Correct me if I am wrong, cattails take a long time to come 
back. This was great pheasant cover. If there is any snow,
these low areas will fill up with water, hence not used for
production.

So much for every farmer being the steward of the land.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

For the most part, farmers could care less about habitat for wildlife, unless they are sportsmen themselves. They want workable crop land. That is where they make their living, unless of course they have a G/O paying the land owner $15.00-$25.00/bird that is taken on their land. CRP, yes they do get payments for that, I personally don't know how that program works. I was once told by a group of farmers north of Devils Lake, if a pickup pulled into their yard with a Ducks Unlimited supporter sticker on the window, they would never give them permission to hunt their land.


----------



## water_swater (Sep 19, 2006)

sloughs dont take a long time to regrow, if conditions are right they will regenerate over a year. Ducks dont need as many places to sit in the fall as they need places to breed in the spring temporary wetlands, not overgrown sloughs that are completely covered in cattails where no ducks can nest.

Science is scary, who is doing the experiment/paying for it is often more important than any scientific variable!


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

water_swater said:


> Farmers support their families, they are not in the business to raise ducks and geese, they are there to make a living first and foremost. Obviously their are differences in opinions but thats the most basic fact, personall I dont get too worked out, disking a slough to me is like burning a prairie or forest, every few years its a good thing, especially of the sloughs are too overgrown.


I would like to know where you get the idea that disking a slough is good? It is nothing like a fire, fires are a natural occurence and controlled burns are done mimicing this natural occurrence. I don't know of any natural way that the soils in a slough get turned upside down. This is not a good thing for them. Working in a slough just causes sedimentation and then no more slough or a cattail choked slough that holds no more water.

How does discing a slough help farmers support their families. Do you believe that the yields of crops gained off of these wetland soils are worth what the farmers time and cost put into them are. I doubt it in most situations.


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

Target,

I agree with you 100%, I have never seen a wetland/slough
"regenerate over a year" when disked up. The funny thing
the one farmer that disked over 6 sloughs also leases his
land for hunting and these areas where some of the "honey
holes" for pheasant.


----------



## Ihuntnfish (Sep 13, 2005)

You may not agree with it but farming can have a very tight profit margin and working that slough or wetland can pay off for years to come for a farmer. I do believe that to collect insurance payments or prevented planting the acres have to have been farmed at least once in the past 5 to 7 years (I don't know the specific number). So by working the land in this dry year they can collect on it for years to come.

Also these dry sloughs can become a haven for weeds and they can then spread into the rest of the fields. It can get very bad if left unchecked as the seeds get spread out into the field it is wet next year and you can't get in there to spray or work the area and it can become a mess real quick. I don't know many farmers that go out and tear up land just because they can there is usually a purpose to most everything a good farmer does.

Farmer at heart, City Dweller for the Money


----------



## water_swater (Sep 19, 2006)

I love duck hunting as much as anyone but eco-correctness is not as important to me as a person, I will agree disking sloughs is not always beneficial, but in the region I live Devils Lake sloughs regenerate every year, paired ducks dont sit in sloughs they sit in water puddles where there were sloughs. I will admit I am looking at this issue as much from my perspective as you are from yours, but I live in duck country I see what happens every spring and every fall. Why does everyone in MN and WI think ND is the same as their states?


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

water_swater,

I was talking about ND, not MN or WI. You seem to come onto
this site just to stir the pot on many subjects. Oh yes, for the
record, one of my occupations, farming. So, I have a little 
background in this discussion. By just disking up the area will
not stop noxious weeds, unless you sprayed the area first.
Been there tried that and found out my results, didn't work.
"Devils Lake Area" and stating you are from MN, what gives?


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

water_swater said:


> I love duck hunting as much as anyone but eco-correctness is not as important to me as a person, I will agree disking sloughs is not always beneficial, but in the region I live Devils Lake sloughs regenerate every year, paired ducks dont sit in sloughs they sit in water puddles where there were sloughs. I will admit I am looking at this issue as much from my perspective as you are from yours, but I live in duck country I see what happens every spring and every fall. Why does everyone in MN and WI think ND is the same as their states?


First off, I am and live in ND. 
Second, I also try to look at it from a farmers and anyone else's perspective. But can not see, except from a few good points made by "IHUNTNFISH" the benefits or purpose for the destruction of these important wetlands. Yes I said destruction, they may regenerate the vegetation but if you dont' think there is much more value in that soil, then the vegeation you are wrong. Most farmers are farmers because of their love for the land just as us hunters are hunters for our love of the creatures.

But besides a few bucks on insurance where is there any benefit in this action.


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

do you own the land or pay the taxes on it? If not forget about and let the person who owns the land do as they wish. If they want to disk up a slough that is there choice it might be dry enough to plant next year it might not. Do you leave any water standing in your yard in town? I doubt it.


----------



## Ande8183 (Sep 18, 2005)

This subject goes by a farmer to farmer basis, and you will see some farmers who leave a couple strips of crop for the animals. On the other hand, with the increase of land prices and the decrease of small farms, some farmers need to plant as much land as they can to stay afloat and they do so by disking the sloughs and tearing out shelterbelts.

I am currently going for my bachelors degree in Natural Resources Management, and I have seen both sides of the spectrum. There are benefits on both sides(depending on which way you look at it) and the one thing that keeps coming to mind is Multiple Use (the best good for the most number of people)

Nick


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

dieseldog said:


> do you own the land or pay the taxes on it? If not forget about and let the person who owns the land do as they wish. If they want to disk up a slough that is there choice it might be dry enough to plant next year it might not. Do you leave any water standing in your yard in town? I doubt it.


Deiseldog you are absolutely right, I don't own land and I dont' let water in my yard. I don't believe I have the right to tell the farmer what to do, but that is not what we were discussing. They have all the right to do whatever they want. But that plays absolutely no part into this discussion. There was no talk of rights, freedom, or anything near that topic. We were talking about habitat and the effects of these practices.

Ande8183,

You say there are benefits on both sides, there may be can you tell me the benefits of discing a slough. I have already commented my view on the yields gained through these wetland bottom soils. And what do you mean by multiple use ( the best for the most).


----------



## PSDC (Jul 17, 2003)

dieseldog,

I respect your comments. But, in some cases the farmer does
not own the land, but only leases for production. In such case
does that justify destroying the wetland?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

First off I was born and raised on a farm, and most of my relatives still farm. However, I have never seen so much wrong information about wetlands. They do not regenerate in five years much less one. Just because you see cattails doesn't mean the other native species have returned. Breeding ducks feed about 80 percent of aquatic insects during egg production. When you disk you burry all the eggs of insects, snails, and other things they eat. That wetland has at least a 90 percent value loss to waterfowl for some time to come. Sure you see them on it, wondering where the heck is the food. 
You look at smog in cities like L. A. and New York and many people think this is terrible. What do you think you put into the atmosphere when you break up a wetland. What do aquatic plants use to grow. Carbon dioxide anyone? They die and leave that in the ground. Tons of it per acre. Then you go out and put a disk or plow to it and poof it's back in the atmosphere. Drained wetlands in North Dakota have put more carbon gas into the atmosphere than all the cars and power plants in North Dakota. Wetlands are not just water, and they are not just for ducks. 
Also, the ground water doesn't occur by magic. When a four foot deep wetland is dry by June 15 most people think it evaporated. Not so, only about half was evaporation. Do some google searching on wetlands, hydrology, ducks, carbon storage etc. Did you know Japan has purchased carbon credits from the Yakima Indian Nation in Washington State? I would guess in the future they may be worth more than the land surrounding them. 
If you fly at all have any of you seen what I have noticed. Wheat or whatever is much greener close to wetlands. On flat land water through capillary action is carried many yards outward from a wetland. I have always wondered about a five acre wetland in a 40 acre field. I will bet that if farmer A drains it, and farmer B doesn't that farmer B will get more bushels of wheat from his field simply because the depth to ground water on the 50 to 100 yards around the wetland supports a much high bushel per acre. Things are not always as they look. Also, have you ever noticed that nasty minerals that come in two, three, maybe five years after they drain a wetland. Then all they grow is kochia.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

water_swater said:


> Ducks dont need as many places to sit in the fall as they need places to breed in the spring temporary wetlands, not overgrown sloughs that are completely covered in cattails where no ducks can nest.


I'm not a wildlife biologist, but even I know that most ducks do not "nest" in sloughs, but in the grasslands around the slough. Only divers nest in the sloughs.

huntin1


----------



## Ande8183 (Sep 18, 2005)

Target, Disking a slough is not beneficial to the wildlife but it is beneficial for the farmer. The US Forest Service is a multiple use agency, and what this means is that they use the land for range, minerals, hydrology, but they also use it to create wilderness areas. So by using the multiple use philosophy, you dont create a park system nor do you completely destroy the land. Farmers are not there to create habitat for wildlife, they are there to make money.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ande, we know that, and we are not blaming we are simply talking about if the do things to benefit habitat. Some do, some don't. Some think about the future, some think about now. They are like everyone else, no better, no worse. Because they control more land (habitat) than the state and federal government combined what they do is a great interest to everyone.
Some of what they do effects hunters, some of what they do effects all of society. Some is good some is bad. 
I have said on some threads that I would prefer to pay for conservation practices than support prices. The truth is we need them both. Other countries can supply food cheaper, but this is our country. And as long as their remains land that is not posted most sportsmen will feel obligated to support agriculture. 
Why support prices? Because farmers are unorganized. They pay what the chemical and fertilizer people ask for their product, then they go to the elevator and ask; "what will you give me for my wheat". If it was totally free enterprise would the farmer get more if prices go up. No, the trucker would get more, the mill would get more, the bakery would get more, but the farmer would get very little. By paying support prices we ensure that farming will remain a family business.
It is ironic that we talk about draining or disking a wetland to make more money. When it floods the government pays the landowner. This is akin to welfare. I know some that plant crops they know will fail, because the disaster payment is better than they make on some crops. This is farming the system not the land. If a farmer has a small five acre wetland and drains it what does he gain. Five acres of dry land. What would have been the bushel per acre surrounding the wetland if he had left it? If the wetland was at a low elevation, and contained high alkalinity (which is common in low elevation wetlands here in the Dakota's) what happens after five years. In many cases the evaporation at the soil surface will give a white alkalinity at the surface and grow like a cancer into ten acres. What is the bushel per acre on this type of land? Good if you can combine kochia. It's kind of make a buck today, loose two bucks tomorrow.

Currently outfitters and guides are driving a very dangerous wedge between farmers and sportsmen. In the past we have always supported each other, but outfitters are providing an addictive catalyst that will destroy that relationship. Watch your local community and see if it is economically better or worse ten years from now, then ask yourself what happened. 
This subject itself demonstrates that society is beginning to question the value of the family farm. It is up to you guys to convince people of the family farm value to society. Most of us hope you are convincing. Good luck - sincerely.


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

Plainsman you should be a farmer since you have all the answers! :eyeroll:

uke:


----------



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

JustAnotherDog said:


> Plainsman you should be a farmer since you have all the answers! :eyeroll:
> 
> uke:


Gee Ron ... 20 posts and this is your first venture onto the Hot Topics forum(other than some mundane chatter about gas mileage)... nice to see your contribution here is so deep and thought provoking...

Care to provide some comprehensive analogy we can all use to ponder the depth of your logic?

Just checking...


----------



## Ande8183 (Sep 18, 2005)

Now this is getting to get really irritating. Ryan how can you judge someone by the number of posts they have? Just because you know everything, doesnt mean that other people dont have opinions. As a Moderator I thought you were suppose to accept both sides of the spectrum even if you dont agree with it. Isnt that the whole purpose of Hot Topics?

Nick


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Sure, he can see both sides of the issue. But he can also call BS when he sees it too. And I would say that Ron's deep and thought provoking post would qualify as BS. Maybe if he actually added some substance to justify his take on Plainsman's views, other than the little pukey guy.

We can learn a lot from Plainsman. He has dedicated his life and career to the wildlife of the Great Plains. He is very level-headed and respectful. He deserves that same respect in return. (He better not let his comrades in the Politics forum see his posts about carbon sequestration though!:beer

That being said, us mods will always be on the lookout for one another.


----------



## Ande8183 (Sep 18, 2005)

I have to apologize for my last post. I was not thinking clearly when I said "As a Moderator I thought you were suppose to accept both sides of the spectrum even if you dont agree with it. Isnt that the whole purpose of Hot Topics?" Looking back I understand that the comment can be construed as hypocritical.

Robert, my problem with Ryan's post was that he started his attack with how many posts Ron has had. In my opinion that is wrong. I have seen this before and just because a person is new to this site, it doesnt mean the person is wrong. I only have 88 posts, so does that mean I do not know as much as you? That was my only problem with his post.

Nick


----------



## dieseldog (Aug 9, 2004)

yes we can enroll land in a carbon program now and get paid not to till it. Hey Plainsman how much carbon goes into the air when all the city people dig a basement for their new house in what used to be a field or wetland. Seems to me that those wetlands are hurt more to urban sprawl then a farmer disking up a slough.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Your right, the earth doesn't know who is digging. If you search some of the literature I think it is about five tons per acre for upland and up to 35 tons per acre for wetland. Don't quote me though, it isn't my field, I just listen and read. 
Actually I have a degree in agriculture. As a child on the farm I questioned whether or not there was a conflict with wildlife and agriculture. I liked both, and still do, and to this day believe in coexistence perhaps both can benefit. All I know for sure now is how little we know. In other words the older I get the more I realize how little I know. Disturbing isn't it. 
If I could accomplish one thing in my life that I could be happy about it would be finding something that benefited both wildlife and agriculture. I think CRP does that. I think it provides for the next generation of farmers. The topsoil built up through capture of wind and water born sediments and decomposition of grasses will be the futures valuable ag land. 
A couple old bachelor farmers (one passed away now) that I really respect would be out in their fields running soil chemistry every spring. They put on the amount of nitrogen they needed, no more, no less. Their records back to the 1920's (family farm) showed that not every year was a bonanza ($543 in 1936), but they left millions to relatives. They were frugal with their money, and scientific with their land. They were very impressive people for their age. They only raised grain since the 1960's and must have read all winter. They could discuss the theory of relativity or the chaos theory with you if you wanted to.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Farmers can get paid on those wet acres as part of the prevented plant provisions of the Federal Crop Insurance program. But in order to qualify for payment the farmer has to make a pass through the acreage in order to show that it possibly could get farmed and therefore could also be prevented planted acres if the acres are so wet they cannot be planted. Some of these so called wetlands were farmed before the wet cycle and because prevented plant payments were paid for so many years on acres that had not been planted the program became more restrictive and thus in order to requalify for prevented plant payments farmers need to show that it in fact can possibly be farmed again. It gets a little complicated but basically they want to farm it because some of that land is probably some of the best land in the field particularly in dry cycles as long as it doesn't have to much alkali in the soil profile.


----------



## duxnbux (Feb 25, 2002)

I think that DJROOSTER finally hit the nail on the head on this topic based on conversations that I have had with farmers.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

When you get rid of cattails the snow won't pile up as deep so when spring thaw comes there's a lot less water in the slew... fact of nature.



> I respect your comments. But, in some cases the farmer does
> not own the land, but only leases for production. In such case
> does that justify destroying the wetland?


If the wetland is dry enough to farm you cant blame that on the farmer, we wish we were in control of the weather. In dry years production tapers off on the hilltops and we rely upon the lowlands to make up for it. That is one of the things that makes ND such a great place to farm. Its called DRY LAND farming.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Great posts, Plainsman, and others. This underscores the need for more wetland preserving Govt. or privatly sponsored programs to address this issue. Maybe perpetual easements for wetlands at least, in ND might be in order. 
If a farmer can get a one time good tax write off (especially spread overseveral years) by putting a perpetual conservation easement on his wetlands, maybe ploughing the wetlands when they are dry might stop.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

ahhhh... the gross return on wheat acres is at least $90.00/acre. I have a slew I will put in wetlands for $50.00/acre per year if any one will offer me that..... I'm gonna hold my breath until someone does..haha


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

There are more than a few alternatives out there to plowing up a wetland

Check the link for some of them.

http://www.ndnrt.com/programs/

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

sure would be nice if we could eat that paper and feed it to our families.... unfortunately it takes a lot more than just great programs to insure stability and security in a family farm situation.

You just don't seem to understand that this is perfect dry land farming country... those slews are what feeds the dang country in the droughts.... or would you rather give up our most important resource.... FOOD???


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

I guess I don't quite understand because the farmer owns the land and uses it to feed his family. The farmer NEVER knows if there will be a profit until the year is over. Every year the land is planted which provides habitat for wildlife.

In order to prevent all of us here from paying $25 pound for steak, $7 for a loaf of bread, etc. (and to pay back for things like grain embargoes) the government invented farm programs.

The payments are dependant upon production per acre and even CRP land must have been in production at one time or it is not eligible. If the farmer signs land into wildlife, he completely losses control over the signed up land and even to some extent, all the land surrounding the signed up land.

Those low lands being disked are potential acres to be planted next year if it is dry enough, if it isn't, so be it, the farmer tried.

Everyday I deal with people that think when they buy a license or own a bow or rifle, should be allowed to use it whenever and however they wish. One time a guy wanted to file a complaint on a farmer that chased him off his land because he was shooting broadheads into a large bale. He didn't bother to ask the farmer if it was okay, just did it. The farmer said he's just tired of people thinking his land is free just because it isn't inside a city limit and mowed every week.

If it was so easy every person with an agriculture degree would be farming, correct??

Sorry for the rant as this is sort of a sore spot with me. People drive around and see the land and think there is so much that the farmer should just free up some for them Didn't mean anything personally with Plainsman, just struck me the wrong way and I shouldn't have responded in such a short way as I did.

I also thought the job of a legit "moderator" would be to private message someone (as I did to Ryan) instead of act like someone ****** in his wheaties.

Sorry - I'll go back to lurking.


----------



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

JustAnotherDog said:


> I guess I don't quite understand because the farmer owns the land and uses it to feed his family. The farmer NEVER knows if there will be a profit until the year is over. Every year the land is planted which provides habitat for wildlife.
> 
> In order to prevent all of us here from paying $25 pound for steak, $7 for a loaf of bread, etc. (and to pay back for things like grain embargoes) the government invented farm programs.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the followup post...

This is a great resonse from a personal perspective we need to see on this forum. I sure hope you continue to post up replies like this... we need passionate guys like you on the forum.

Thanks for apologizing to Plainsman too... I'm sure he didn't take it personal, as often guys are replying with passion on both sides.

I'm in the process of PM'ing you back as I write this. Thanks for taking the time to move the other relevent parts of this offline...

Regards,

Ryan


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

I was back at the farm today setting posts and cables and some signs to keep some unwanted folks out.

The unwanted folks that call themselves hunters and constantly complain about farmers.

The ones that call themselves conservationists just because they buy a hunting license every year.

The ones that post their own land and then hunt everyone elses first whether it is posted or not.

I'm also really tired.

Need to stay out of the "hot topics" area when tired.

In two minutes it'll be another day.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

JustAnotherDog said:


> The ones that post their own land and then hunt everyone elses first whether it is posted or not.


I don't do much complaining about farmers as a lot of my friends are farmers. But the sentence above, funny you should mention that, because in my 30+ years of hunting it has been my experience that that majority of the people who do this are...........well, farmers. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

Habitat Hugger said:


> Great posts, Plainsman, and others. This underscores the need for more wetland preserving Govt. or privatly sponsored programs to address this issue. Maybe perpetual easements for wetlands at least, in ND might be in order.
> If a farmer can get a one time good tax write off (especially spread overseveral years) by putting a perpetual conservation easement on his wetlands, maybe ploughing the wetlands when they are dry might stop.


The US Fisha and wildlife Service do offer a perpetual easement in ND to prevent draining, filling, leveling, and burning every year. However, the farmer still has the right to farm through the wetlands on a dry year.



Buckseye said:


> ahhhh... the gross return on wheat acres is at least $90.00/acre. I have a slew I will put in wetlands for $50.00/acre per year if any one will offer me that..... I'm gonna hold my breath until someone does..haha.


The wetland easement will pay you I believe it was no less then 60% of the true and full (tax) value of the land. In most cases this is over $50.

JUST ANOTHER DOG

Thank you for the opportunity to clear up a common misconception. You stated that the farmer completey losees control over the land signed up into wildlife. NOT TRUE. Not even close, yes that are programs that put limitation onto certain practices. But they dont' lose control. Example, They sign their land into an easement, there are 2 types; 
a wet easement and a grass easement. A wet easement you recieve a payment and can no longer drain, fill, or burn without a permit the specified wetlands. If they are dry you can farm through them, you can do whatever you like to any of the other acres not wetlands or the wetland that you decided to leave out of the easement.

A grass easement is a payment to prohibit the breaking of native soils or grasslands. The loss of habitat is alarming and I believe this is a great program. All the farmer needs to do is not break up his soil or grasses. He can graze it to dust, His only limitation is no plowing, or breaking soil or haying until after July 15.

These wildlife programs are not here to limit, hurt, or piss off any farmers. They are they to protect the habitat and resources. They are trying to ease this cooperation between wildife and farming practices.

I also do not like the insurance policy that you must destroy the wetland to collect payment on it. This is one topic that really bugs me. 
We are losing grasslands at an extreme rate yet with the disaster payment and insurance payments it is much easier to and cheaper to destroy grasslands in mediocre or poor farming soils and landscapes, then to use it as pasture like it should be. I do not but a lot of blame on the farmers for this because it is a no-brainer. But something needs to be done about these policies and the ease of busting up native sod to plant something that won't yield well just to collect a payment.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> The wetland easement will pay you I believe it was no less then 60% of the true and full (tax) value of the land. In most cases this is over $50.
> 
> heck of it is that payment doesn't come every year like a crop/disaster payment does.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The payments are dependant upon production per acre and even CRP land must have been in production at one time or it is not eligible.


That is a real sore spot with my brother. He has a field that has been in cropland since the late 1800's, but had it in the State Habitat program in the early 80's. Because it wasn't cropped then he can't get it into CRP. I know they do it so people don't go out and break up pasture then put it into CRP, but a little common sense wouldn't kill anyone would it.



> People drive around and see the land and think there is so much that the farmer should just free up some for them Didn't mean anything personally with Plainsman, just struck me the wrong way and I shouldn't have responded in such a short way as I did.


To be honest those things would tick me off too. I think I would blow a little steam once in a while also. Who am I kidding, I do blow a little steam once in a while. But, you know hunt1 is right about landowners being very disrespectful to other landowners, at least in the area we hunt. Of course the guy were both perhaps thinking about is a jerk no matter his occupation.

So what do you landowners think would be a viable habitat program that would be profitable for farmers? I think programs like CRP will make your farm better for your children, what else do you think will work?


----------



## JustAnotherDog (Oct 16, 2005)

> But, you know hunt1 is right about landowners being very disrespectful to other landowners, at least in the area we hunt.


We can't be hunting very far apart. :lol:

But I don't see any more (or less) disrespect with landowners as with the general population. I think everyone is too disrespectfull some times. (see my first post on this topic for example  )



> So what do you landowners think would be a viable habitat program that would be profitable for farmers? I think programs like CRP will make your farm better for your children, what else do you think will work?


I see differences in CRP in different areas of the state (ND). Just like someone saying there "the gross return on wheat acres is at least $90.00/acre." I would have to say, where? when? Could be more, could be less, but the area and the year can cause a lot of change. Some CRP contracts require trees be planted, some require feed plots for wildlife, some don't require anything except weed control. I know farmers that plant feed plots at their own expense when it isn't required.

The last year I farmed I seeded everything. That meant a whole 700 something acres when actuality I was farming a section and a half or 960 acres. The rest was wetlands or brush. The 200+ unfarmable acres supplied a lot of wildlife habitat. Maybe there should be some type of credit given for unfarmable acres to encourage leaving them that way. I see there's a new CRP program for land around an area that will support so many ducks and maybe that is the way to go.

(just for the record, in '81 I gave the farm back to Dad and left with a 60's something Rambler and a looming bankruptcy, just one of many in that area and era)

Things must have changed on the wetlands and farmer control as I knew a lot of unhappy farmers that lost control of the wetlands they sold to "wildlife" in the 60's and 70's. A few were even prosecuted for draining into or out of the area.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Haven't taken the time to verify this information but it came out in a Minnesota newspaper today. I was particularly intrigued by the last paragraph
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CRP grasslands are vital as nesting habitat for pheasants, ducks and many other species of birds. Across the Midwest, CRP acreage produces 13½ million pheasants annually, Nomsen said. It also supports 2.2 million ducks per year in the Prairie Pothole Region, according to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

"Obviously, it's been a tremendous success for wildlife," Nomsen said. "And we also have to look to its benefits in income stability to farmers and landowners. In a real sense, CRP is a big part of the high quality of life in rural America."

A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture study showed a 22 percent increase in pheasant counts for every 4 percent increase in CRP-enrolled acres within large units of pheasant habitat.

The program prevents 450 million tons of soil erosion annually and puts $1.78 billion in the pockets of participating farmers and landowners, according to the USDA.

A University of Tennessee study released in September found that CRP is also a fiscally responsible initiative. The study model predicted that eliminating CRP and planting those acres to crops would cost the federal government an additional $32.6 billion from 2007 to 2015 in federal crop-support payments. In addition, the study found that if CRP were expanded from 39.2 million acres to 45 million acres by 2015, net farm income would increase by $1.7 billion.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I think Murphy's golden rule applies here. he who owns the gold rules.


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

Plainsman
That is a real sore spot with my brother. He has a field that has been in cropland since the late 1800's said:


> Plainsman,
> 
> If this cropland is already in grass or prairie why does he want to put it into CRP. can he not rent it out as pasture, or is it still in the habitat programafter 20 years.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No, it is out of the habitat program. He is haying it now., he only has a dozen or so horses left on the farm. No more Herefords. He is retired, and the farm is paid for so it will stay grass no matter what. He wanted it into CRP in the past, because it paid twice as much as the state habitat program. 
He is retired from teaching and farming and just does some taxidermy now. He won first place for North America (can't remember the taxidermy supply that puts on the taxidermy competition Van ***** I think) with a shoulder mount moose. This was about ten years ago. He only does mammal, not into the fish or birds.


----------



## target (Aug 10, 2006)

Plainsman,

I understand the situation, and applaude his efforts to keep this into grass. In many situations I fear that land is now being broken only to be put into CRP, have seen this in a few occasions (mostly with dry wetlands). He does have a few options, PLOTS is one, but I am assuming he is a hunter and does not want to open his land to public. 
Another option would be a grassland easement that has a few restrictions but can be a nice payment. 
The ND G&F also has a few programs that could assist in him keeping it into grassland.


----------

