# Potatoe Invasion (I wish I were kidding)



## bioman (Mar 1, 2002)

Anybody familiar with this issue? One more reason to say no to spuds (the other being they are very high on the glycemic index)...

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/conservatio ... aters.html


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

very interesting - Thanks !!! - No mention of DU :roll:


----------



## Dakota Kid (Aug 17, 2002)

Thanks for posting this link.

Fetch, in the article DU is listed as a partner along with the rest of orgs. DU has several biologists who do nothing but administer FWS easements. Its a cooperative agreement between DU and the service. In that article, I would bet DU also was involved in the rotational grazing system implemented.

DU may be bad in the PR dept (getting out what they do) but to suggest that they have done nothing is this case is blatantly false.

You know you can always call the Bismarck office and learn something


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

My error on DU on this one .............so far

Look at all the orgs & groups that are involved - I wonder if DU would give equal credit to all ???

& if a project is done & then they claim it as theirs - even though they may have done only a little - As you can tell that kinda SPIN bugs me (as well as lots of other things about DU :roll:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey guys I live in McHenry County and have for over 30 years of my life. This article really blows the potato production out of proportion, there have been spuds grown at Karlshrue for a long time now and are starting to show up at other places too. The thing that is not being considered is the potatoes are expensive to grow and the people growing them are not wasting money farming land that has potholes in it, that would be a waste of money. All the potato fields are irrigated and you just don't waste money irrigating a cattail slew, those types of lands are not even considered. The reason they want to grow spuds out here is we have alot of sandy soil and sand washes off easier than gumbo after the harvest.

The land that has been put in this program is pasture that is under water for about a month or so in the spring, no duck nests there.The good thing for the landowner is those were exceptionaly wet years and unknowing people came along with extra money and were fleeced out of it. Between the water being backed up out of the refuge (in their annual manmade flood disaster) onto these areas and cows there isn't even a gopher living there.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

Nice spelling on potato(e) invasion....are you related to Dan Quale?

This article sounds like a lot of BS. I'm not giving up my red river valley spuds for anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I had the E on their and took it off :toofunny: Dan Quail

To be fair the annual manmade flood is created by the Corp of Engineers for the purpose of desilting and decontaminating the Mouse River before it returns to Canada. This project has been going for a long time and for that reason their holding cell capability has been reduced due to the silt being dropped when they stop the flow of the river. It has filled in about three feet and of course the Corp. still needs to do their job so the water is being forced farther and farther away from the actual Corp property which by the way is also a refuge.


----------



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

Let's look at this from a couple of angles that aren't sportsman driven.

First, the landowner. IF (and I stress IF) this happens, land values will be greatly effected. Can you blame a landowner, as we are talking about private land, to maximize the value of their property? How many of you would sell a car for $1,000 if all you had to do to get 10,000 would be to put new tires on it (thereby increasing the VALUE).

Second, the "cattle" industry? Right now any cow older than 30 months of age isn't worth the straw it's chewing on (at least for slaughter).

Third, as buckseye alluded, potatoes are not a crop you can wake up and decide to plant. It is very difficult to grow spuds without a production contract, which are VERY difficult to come by these days. Think about this, only 25% of the Red River Valley potatoe growers who grew spuds in 1992 are still growing them today. Why? Because growers lost contracts and attempted to grow taters for the open market. They found out that without hi-tech, climate controlled facilities they had no means of reliable storage (many growers lost A LOT of money on spoiled spuds).
And cooperatives are a joke. What percentage of them fail in the first 5 years? 80%? Even Dakota Growers Pasta is no longer a "cooperative".

smalls


----------



## rifleman (Jan 22, 2004)

I read the article and from the description, it sounds like they are trying to protect what grassland is left. I don't think anyone would argue the fact grassland is more productive for wildlife than irrigated potatoes.

A couple comments for buckseye. After looking at topo maps, I have a hard time understanding how water at that refuge can back all the way to the Karlsruhe area. And, from what I understand, the Corps of Engineers do not own the refuge, its the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Also, sandy soils do not accumulate minerals from irrigation water, allowing them to leach deeper into the ground, unlike heavier gumbo soils. That is probably why irrigators like this area, not because dirt washes off the spuds easier. Those sandy soils also can cause problems for groundwater because pollutants like herbicides and fertilizers can leach into the water table. I think the Karsruhe has some problems now, maybe because of irrigation.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

hey rifleman...the project area I am talking about is north of Buffaloe lodge lake near Granville the Mouse River waters backup in the refuge then down there thru the Cutbank creek. But the same dirty water is first held at the Eaton Damn which backs up into the Wintering Creek which is just east of Karlshrue.

There are probaly multiple reasons for using our sandy soils and another is these are the areas that can be permitted for irrigation.

Check on the NWR website you will be able to find the same info I did on the water purification project.


----------



## rifleman (Jan 22, 2004)

Can you list the NWR website so I can make sure I get to the right one? Thanks.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Do a search for Clark Salyer National Refuge.

I agree with Buckeye.I also have lived here for 30 years.I don't see a wildlife threat here.Most of that land is pasture.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey rifleman...I'm still trying to figure out which webpage I found that info. It has the flow charts for the Souris River and other info too.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I dont think the real issue is current use, but possible future conversion into spuds from grassland. This has happened in many places, and about the only way to be sure that it wont is a grassland easement. I congradulate the effort up there, and only wish we could find funding to buy all that are available.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

gosh tsodak...if the issue is not current use what is the purpose of this type of article? Is it indoctrination (preparing minds for change) or some type of scare hype....

Another reason there isn't many places around that will work for spuds are the spring water tables being so high. I suppose that is why they have been mainly growing them outside of the Souris Loop where there is a considerable change in elavation, lighter soils and all natural drainage (hillsides).

As far as I know most of the recent new ground being put into spuds is around the Esmond area.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

What I am trying to say, and failing at :lol: , is that just because these areas are not current potato ground does not mean the potential for conversion is there. I have seen it in the Sandhills of SEND. Those small potholes in sand can be farmed out very effectively in a few years with no drainage taking place. Obviously there are areas that cant, but what would protect those areas if swampbuster were removed?? It could happen, and those easements would cost three times what they do now.

And dont discount the value of those areas staying in grass just because they only flood in spring and are not nesting areas. that can be great feeding habitat for many ducks, helping them to improve there body condition before they ever start nesting somewhere else. An acre of this converted is important too.

The way I see the article is that it is a call to action that this kind of thing is happening, which it is, and that there is something that can be done to prevent this type of land from being broken for crop production into the future. Not"Oh my gosh, every acre of pasture in X county are going to be destroyed this year!!!" but "There is slow steady conversion of sandy pastureland going on, as new land is opened for potato farming, and this is the effect that it can have on waterfowl...."

This continuing conversion of rangeland to pasture land is really a big deal, converting many townships per year of grass into cropland in the great plains. Easements such as these are one way to say that these acres will be protected forever. Does not address how they are manged, but it does keep them in grass. That is a huge step.

Just my thoughts.....


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Hey tsodak...it's to bad the sandy marginal lands that are in CRP couldn't be taken out of that Program and put into production of spuds. It seems kinda funny that the gov. would permit even more sandy marginal lands to be broken out and put to use as ag land. This could be controlled with irrigation permits. With all the effort and money that was put into The CRP program to get the highly errodible land out of ag use, it just don't make sense to add more poor quality land to ag use. Just a thought, thanks for taking time to explain this stuff to me I do appreciate it.

Keep up the good work, it's people like you that help make these type of things understandable to us average folks.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I saw a presentation a while ago about the impact that CRP has had on waterfowl production. IT talked about with the first major signups the big measurableincreases that had occured with CRP. Then as a second large infusion was made in the mid 1990s, they thought there would be another. Instead, what they discovered was that the gain in grassland cover from the new CRP had been eaten up by pastureland being converted many times in No-till fashion from pasture to crop. So instead of a big increase in grasslands, all the CRP increases then did was hold us even in terms of grassland cover.

Fascinating, but really the only way ot offset that is to say we as a country will never pay farm program funds to land that are broken, or buy the easements to keep this land out of production. The most cost effective way is to support grass fed beef, and beef in general, so people keep grazing lands intact instead of breaking them. That is a tall order, but this type of thing does more to keep land productive for watefowl than all the water control structures in the world.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

AMEN tsodak...I am so with you on not breaking up pastures or crp. I have always hoped crp would come out as pasture or at the least hayland.


----------

