Jump to content

Pheasant Hunting - More Food than Pheasants


Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, Tilkut said:

FYI, just looked at the spreadsheet. If my math is correct, spending on CRP in Iowa alone since 1987. 
$ 6,565,000,000. Half buying land, half managing it, we’d be a thousand percent better off now. FYI, 2019 alone it was 

$ 392,276,890. Even only using  half to purchase, even at $10,000 an acre, you’d have enough for 39,000 acres. What we do is foolish. Sorry. 

Correction. If only half is used to purchase, 19,600 acres. But that is just 2019. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Tilkut

    11

  • bigjohnsd

    6

  • Peent

    5

  • dogrunner

    4

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

2020 marks my 26th year of Pheasant Hunting in South Dakota.  The first 16 years were pretty darn good, then came the drastic conversion of marginal lands into ethanol-driven corn production, loss of

I gained three pounds just looking at the photos!! I'd kill to keep others away from that paella!!

First everyone's gotta understand this is US National politics at play here. You have to get a bill originated in the House, passed in the Senate, and signed by the President. As we all know the US Ho

Posted Images

38 minutes ago, Tilkut said:

FYI, just looked at the spreadsheet. If my math is correct, spending on CRP in Iowa alone since 1987. 
$ 6,565,000,000. Half buying land, half managing it, we’d be a thousand percent better off now. FYI, 2019 alone it was 

$ 392,276,890. Even only using  half to purchase, even at $10,000 an acre, you’d have enough for 39,000 acres. What we do is foolish. Sorry. 

It's politics that matters here.

Most politicians don't give a damn about pheasants or even the grassland birds and animals such land could support. The first thing is the local and state politicians would never support taking such a massive amount of land off the local tax base.

Second, all that CRP $$$ swishes around in the economy with all sorts of second and third level positive effects on local jobs and businesses.

With certain exceptions such as clearly obvious examples like Civil War battlefields or 1st class natural wonders like Yellowstone, spending more money to buy more federal land is absolute anathema to many people. CRP $$ goes to farmers (supposedly.) Almost everyone supports helping out family farms, if even 80% of them are multimillion dollar corporations. Fourth, remember what Senator Dirkson said many years ago :  " A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money." They really don't care if a few hundred million washes through the economy from CRP; the politicians get credit for CRP. They would get 90% abuse if they spend hundreds of millions on land.

Buying land as you suggest may look fine on a spreadsheet, but it is NEVER going to happen.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

At its peak the country had 35,000,000 acres in CRP.

 

Using your numbers 35,000,000 x 10,000 = $350,000,000,000  now I recognize that there is a lot of CRP eligible land that only costs 1,000 per acre but I can't see how the government purchasing the land, which effectively removes it from the tax rolls, is ever going to fly in any of these cash poor states that are already on the dole receiving more $$ from Washington than they contribute in Federal Taxes.  Property Taxes generally go to fund schools - can't afford to take this land off of the tax rolls.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quailguy said:

It's politics that matters here.

Most politicians don't give a damn about pheasants or even the grassland birds and animals such land could support. The first thing is the local and state politicians would never support taking such a massive amount of land off the local tax base.

Second, all that CRP $$$ swishes around in the economy with all sorts of second and third level positive effects on local jobs and businesses.

With certain exceptions such as clearly obvious examples like Civil War battlefields or 1st class natural wonders like Yellowstone, spending more money to buy more federal land is absolute anathema to many people. CRP $$ goes to farmers (supposedly.) Almost everyone supports helping out family farms, if even 80% of them are multimillion dollar corporations. Fourth, remember what Senator Dirkson said many years ago :  " A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you are talking about real money." They really don't care if a few hundred million washes through the economy from CRP; the politicians get credit for CRP. They would get 90% abuse if they spend hundreds of millions on land.

Buying land as you suggest may look fine on a spreadsheet, but it is NEVER going to happen.  

Then call it what it is. Subsidies for votes. Subsidies for corporate farming. If wildlife isn’t involved, then quit calling it conservation.  Because it’s not. My point was CRP does not work to conserve wildlife. Including birds. And it’s a shame. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Iowa, a percentage of our Habitat Stamp funds does pay taxes on DNR properties. One factor that few seem to acknowledge in ownership is that it lasts forever. 40,000 acres in a year under CRP isn't much, but times 100 years in ownership, it's a big deal.  Management and taxes on reasonably purchased property, can be fully subsidized with revenue from partial farming. 

 

I sometimes think the answer is for habitat organizations to declare as corporations and receive the same handouts and forgiveness that farmers demand.   

 

I just returned from 10 days in South Dakota and two of the farms I used to hunt for a handshake have been turned over to sons. Their fathers told me they would never accept money for, or lease hunting rights. Their sons don't shake hands, they extend them for $100 bills. The next generation of farmers will kill any opportunity to hunt private land without paying a fee. When that happens, don't call them conservationists because they invest in habitat for profit. That's not conservation, it's business.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Tilkut said:

Then call it what it is. Subsidies for votes. Subsidies for corporate farming. If wildlife isn’t involved, then quit calling it conservation.  Because it’s not. My point was CRP does not work to conserve wildlife. Including birds. And it’s a shame. 

I agree with Quailguy.  This is the second time today I have to quote Aldo Leopold.  

"Conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner who conserves the public interest".

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peent said:

I agree with Quailguy.  This is the second time today I have to quote Aldo Leopold.  

"Conservation will ultimately boil down to rewarding the private landowner who conserves the public interest".

But that’s temporary , rented conservation. It hasn’t worked, and frequently the benefits disappear. I want long term, permanent, managed, effective conservation. I think We’ve gotten into a slump. We don’t expect enough for what we spend. Over $6 billion in Iowa alone since 1987. Are we better off now after spending $6 billion, than we were in 1987? Or are we at the exact same spot, even after spending all that money? We need to expect better. We need to expect more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tilkut said:

But that’s temporary , rented conservation. It hasn’t worked, and frequently the benefits disappear. I want long term, permanent, managed, effective conservation. I think We’ve gotten into a slump. We don’t expect enough for what we spend. Over $6 billion in Iowa alone since 1987. Are we better off now after spending $6 billion, than we were in 1987? Or are we at the exact same spot, even after spending all that money? We need to expect better. We need to expect more. 

We all see how the USFS manages to mess up forest habitat.  Do you want the same for grasslands and rangelands?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Peent said:

We all see how the USFS manages to mess up forest habitat.  Do you want the same for grasslands and rangelands?   

I want effective conservation. Have the state do it. Have private organizations do it. Form a partnership. Have local communities be involved, to develop trails and other activities to supplement.  What i dont want, is to be right back where we started after another $6 billion. If we don’t want to improve what we do, dont spend the money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Tilkut said:

I want effective conservation. Have the state do it. Have private organizations do it. Form a partnership. Have local communities be involved, to develop trails and other activities to supplement.  What i dont want, is to be right back where we started after another $6 billion. If we don’t want to improve what we do, dont spend the money. 

The dollars you claim ineffective come from our Farm Bill.  Only 7% of the farm bill goes towards Conservaton while 75% goes to what they call nutrition.  Namely food stamps.  Conservation isn’t something you can just buy once and be done with it.  

BDA3DF60-2CAD-48CC-99F5-45603CBDC7FD.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peent said:

The dollars you claim ineffective come from our Farm Bill.  Only 7% of the farm bill goes towards Conservaton while 75% goes to what they call nutrition.  Namely food stamps.  Conservation isn’t something you can just buy once and be done with it.  

BDA3DF60-2CAD-48CC-99F5-45603CBDC7FD.jpeg

Yep, lots tied into the farm bill and to me not for the good, I think some of them programs should be moved to something else, that way the Farm Bill looks a lot smaller. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Peent said:

The dollars you claim ineffective come from our Farm Bill.  Only 7% of the farm bill goes towards Conservaton while 75% goes to what they call nutrition.  Namely food stamps.  Conservation isn’t something you can just buy once and be done with it.  

BDA3DF60-2CAD-48CC-99F5-45603CBDC7FD.jpeg

I’m just addressing the CRP portion of the bill. I agree conservation isn’t something you can do once. That’s why it’s important to buy the land permanently. Also why I’d want 1/2 the money to go towards managing the land. Permanently. In Iowa alone in just 2019 it would give you 

$ 196,000,000 for CRP land management. I’m guessing that’s more than Iowa spends now on all DNR programs combined. Current program benefits completely disappear when prices go up and land comes out of CRP. Then you start all over. It doesn’t work for benefiting wildlife. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many guys from the east and Great lakes states would hunt ruffed grouse if they had little to no public land and the private holders asked them for $100+ a day to hunt ruffs. 

 

A guy can expect that there will always be ruffed grouse, chukar, huns and prairie grouse to chase as they do well on what public there is. But farmland pheasants, not so much.

 

There are whitetail hunters buying land, then reselling it while holding hunting rights to it. Why habitat organizations haven't woken up to that concept is beyond me. Buy a section, fence off the wasteland and resell the good cropland while contractually holding hunting rights to all of it. Such a no-brainer. 

       

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2020 at 4:48 AM, dogrunner said:

Yep, lots tied into the farm bill and to me not for the good, I think some of them programs should be moved to something else, that way the Farm Bill looks a lot smaller. 

I agree in general and specifically in this case.

 

I'm certain that the "Nutrition" is lumped in with the "AG" so that the farm States can get buy in from the "Non Farm States" which simplifies getting this bill passed.

 

The Washington way of building anything - source at least something from each state - guaranteed support.

 

It seems wrong to me that these bills lump so much stuff under a misleading heading but that's politics and that's how "Sausage Gets made".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to fess up, I work in a capacity that utilizes Farm Bill dollars to help landowners put habitat (namely early successional habitat in forests) on their private property.  I build grouse and woodcock habitat in a sustainable fashion on private lands.  The private landowner is rewarded for cutting his timber the way I plan it.  So I am pretty in tune with the Farm Bill and how it works.  Government purchasing private lands and maintaining CRP for habitat purposes is not ever going to be successful.  Paying landowners to periodically maintain CRP is about the only way to successfully rotate this type of grassland and brushland habitats.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...