NDGF: Steinwand Retiring

[Walleye_Chaser]

Yep good habitat is gone and going quick. SAD

 

[guywhofishes]

Yep - modern ag and habitat aren’t real compatible. Tragic.

 

[SDMF]

1. i want zander stocked and i want it now
2. Largemouth bass please in devils lake - no more whiteys --- green bass matters!!!!!!
3. Road hunting legalized along with barrels out the window allowed
4. If SDMF is within 50miles of a lake that lake will not be allowed to have tournaments.

I'm in favor of these.

$6-$8 corn was more responsible than any one person or even any combination of agencies for the vast reduction in habitat (CRP). I'd love to nail the blame to one person or one agency, some scapegoat, but I can't get there.

 

[NG3067]

WJ I understand the loss of habitat from farming and weather but there is many acres of plot land that is grazed down so low you couldn’t hide a field mouse in in, and section 32 or township land that is the same. If a person is going to receive money to put something into a conservation practice, they shouldn’t be able to graze or farm it. I agree with your agriculture reasoning, just think that ND has some of the shittiest looking plot acres around.

 

[SDMF]

WJ I understand the loss of habitat from farming and weather but there is many acres of plot land that is grazed down so low you couldn’t hide a field mouse in in, and section 32 or township land that is the same. If a person is going to receive money to put something into a conservation practice, they shouldn’t be able to graze or farm it. I agree with your agriculture reasoning, just think that ND has some of the shittiest looking plot acres around.

I think there's a bit of that ground that's no longer in PLOTS but the signs are still up.

 

[FlatTopPete]

Oh great, this discussion has morphed into “it’s all the farmers fault for destroying habitat” territory again.

If you guys think CRP is so great and make so much sense put your money where your mouth is: buy some land and put it all Into CRP. And then of course, DO NOT put a no hunting sign up on the land that you paid for because that would be against what everyone wants right?

 

[Fritz the Cat]

When you say "we" who exactly are you referring to? ND sportsmen, landowners or farmed elk raisers?

Can't wait to see who the next idiot in chief will be and how they will fudge it up even more. The dept has gone downhill for awhile and probably going to get worse with the next generation in charge.

Some of you disgruntled carry overs from nodakouthouse.com are such haters. There is nothing any Director can do for you.

 

[NDSportsman]

My beef with the direction of the department doesn't have much to do with wildlife numbers or habitat as 90% of ND is private and their isn't much the GNF can do about that but the the continuing decline of our rights and increasing rules and regulations. The ANS and baiting nonsense are just a couple examples. There's a severe lack of common sense and it just keeps getting worse.

 

[Motohunter]

How about instead of focusing on all the negative things that Steinwand did we figure out which one of the members on here that has all the answers is going to fill the position?? Seems like the most logical thing to do.

 

[guywhofishes]

Oh great, this discussion has morphed into “it’s all the farmers fault for destroying habitat” territory again.

If you guys think CRP is so great and make so much sense put your money where your mouth is: buy some land and put it all Into CRP. And then of course, DO NOT put a no hunting sign up on the land that you paid for because that would be against what everyone wants right?

Oh great, this discussion has morphed into the "if you want better habitat then buy some land" territory again.

Hey GST - Who's fault is habitat loss if not farmers? Are we supposed to tiptoe around such a HUGE problem?

There ARE greedy farmers who farm every square inch they can. Let's go for a drive in eastern ND and I'll show you countless examples of ridiculous decisions to clear every creek and draw and farm it to within a foot of the river/creek edge.

Why is it so hard to accept there are greedy farmers who get carried away? Why always jump on the tiresome "blame all the farmers" retort?

That makes no sense. I don't blindly defend all hunters or city dwellers. We've got plenty of bad apples. But guess what, ag does too.

 

[Kurtr]

seems my choice to move back to Sodak in 2002 was the right one. Feel bad for you guys living up in that waste land.

 

[guywhofishes]

How about instead of focusing on all the negative things that Steinwand did we figure out which one of the members on here that has all the answers is going to fill the position?? Seems like the most logical thing to do.

Easy. Bed Wetter. That guy's IQ is basically off the charts.

- - - Updated - - -

#aregularjordanpeterson

 

[SupressYourself]

They are ripping out a shit-ton of trees just off I29 near Hankinson as we speak. Makes me want to punch someone in the face.
On the other hand, my dad and brother both farm, and they've PLANTED tree rows and CRP over the last few years.
As Guy stated, there are good and bad. The problem is, the "good" are in the minority.

 

[guywhofishes]

Eventually this state will follow MN and other states where the state will decide how close to rivers and other water bodies one can actively farm, when nitrogen can/can't be applied, etc.

Rather than farmers making reasonable decisions about habitat and water quality, some bureaucrat in Bismarck will decide for them.

It's simply how things go when you start down the path to a "European" style government where most people are dictated the rules by the few - all because of the crappy decisions made by the few in the past.

And rather than encouraging better practices voluntarily NOW, many in ag will choose to attack the messengers rather than address the core issue.

Then they'll get all butt hurt when the gov't (city slickers in Bismarck with no land) start dictating what the farmers can/can't do.

The ag stronghold on the legislature isn't going to last forever.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

How about instead of focusing on all the negative things that Steinwand did we figure out which one of the members on here that has all the answers is going to fill the position?? Seems like the most logical thing to do.

Yes and no. Steinwand had many positives. And no, members on here do not pick the next Director.

When Steinwand was appointed by Governor Hoeven Nov. 30, 2005, the ND wildlife federation and Dick Monson types from nodakouthouse.com had a hissy fit. They wanted Randy Kreil.

As a State agency created by the people, ND Game and Fish is owned by all the people. Therefore all the people have a say in appointing a Director who will balance the interests of the people. The Governor may make the appointment but there is much input from other stakeholders. I believe Steinwand did a great job.

Dean Hildebrand was the nicest guy. But sometimes when he tried to please everyone and then pleased no one.

guy said,
Oh great, this discussion has morphed into the "if you want better habitat then buy some land" territory again.

I bought a quarter of land. Had to bid against a radiologist from Bismarck. He doesn't hunt. Just wanted it in his portfolio. Paid $1900 dollars for $1200 land.

I bought one and he bought the other quarter. Asked him what he is going to do with it. Said he would rent it to me. OK. I had rented it for 31 years. He sends me a contract with a stupid high rent figure. He needs a return on his money. I can't disagree with that except he paid too much. So he rented it out to a land hog who crops it from fence row to fence row. And that guy needs to, to cover the high rent.

Farming used to be a way of life. Now it is a business.

 

[guywhofishes]

I get that it's a business.

That's why I get tired of people acting like it's an old guy with old school values "just trying to get by"... and that's why he tills it fence to fence, fence to river, fence to road surface. To feed his kids and keep the bank at bay.

We know why they're doing it. That's why some of us are not shy about speaking our minds. It's just a business decision to remove what little habitat is left. Which is BS. They have a choice and decide to wipe it all out. Just about every square foot.

Pretty damn abhorrent in my book.

I own my own business - have for thirty years. So spare me the "you would too". No I wouldn't. And I know damn well why they're doing it.

 

[CAH]

Oh great, this discussion has morphed into “it’s all the farmers fault for destroying habitat” territory again.

If you guys think CRP is so great and make so much sense put your money where your mouth is: buy some land and put it all Into CRP. And then of course, DO NOT put a no hunting sign up on the land that you paid for because that would be against what everyone wants right?

And just like that, this thread got interesting! ;:;popcorn

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe farmers destroy the land so it will be devoid of wildlife and they won’t have those pesky hunters asking for permission to hunt all the time?

 

[Duckslayer100]

Just wait until the next drought, and all the farmers who used this lengthy wet period to rip out tree rows, burn sloughs and drain every drop off water off their land, are crying in their beers as their topsoil blows into the next county.

It's already happening. It's amazing how short-sighted folks are, and we make the same mistakes our ancestors did "who didn't know any better."

With the entire anthology of human knowledge at most folks' beckon call (or in their front pocket), it's amazing how history continues to repeat itself.

Same goes for us outdoorsy folks. We can't count on CRP ever coming back. If we want habitat, we either need to find a program that works hand-in-hand with landowners, or rally our legislatures for more public hunting ground -- especially if this cockamamy scheme of online posting pans out like we think it will (as a complete circle jerk).

 

[MarbleEyez]

CRP Program is a joke right now. In the county in which I reside, CRP contracts are less that $30/ac. That same land, taken out of CRP, would rent for $35-$45/ac. If you make your living off of Agriculture, and make decisions based solely on the business side, it's a no brainer.

Best thing that could happen as far as wildlife habitat goes is to start a incentive program for the farmers/ranchers to put tree rows/habitat back in. There's a few ways that it could be done, but no matter which way you do it someone is going to be upset about it.
"Farmer's get all the free stuff, etc.".... Well that's just the way it is. If you want someone to do something that they normally wouldn't do, that is going to be to your benefit or fit your agenda, that's unfortunately the way it works.

Back when the CRP program was thriving, look at what the CRP payments per acre were versus what the land cash rent was. Everyone will have their answer to why is doesn't work now versus 15+ years ago.

 

[Allen]

I'm in favor of these.

$6-$8 corn was more responsible than any one person or even any combination of agencies for the vast reduction in habitat (CRP). I'd love to nail the blame to one person or one agency, some scapegoat, but I can't get there.

CRP, being a federally funded program, is at the discretion of Congress. Congress sets the goals and funding. It's been awhile now, but I distinctly remember ND landowners who wanted to re-up their CRP contracts some years back who were flat out told no. So in order to keep some income coming in, those landowners had to either farm the land or cash rent it out to someone else who would farm it.



As far as tree rows go? I get it, many of them were nearing the end of their useful life, especially with the advent of dicamba resistant crops that saw pesticide drift speed up the demise of the trees. I miss seeing those trees on the countryside because although Monsatan and company talk about how drought tolerant varieties and no-till / minimum till farming would prevent the blowing of the soil, I twice saw 20-30 mile long clouds of dust last week as I was out driving around. And it wasn't exactly windy on either occasion. We need dicamba resistant trees.


NG3067, I'm not sure if you are confusing PLOTS program with CRP, or ???? PLOTS is only an access program, not a conservation program. PLOTS only pays a few dollars an acre and probably doesn't even cover the tax payment on many of those acres of land, much less weed control, which is why they still need to farm/graze it. CRP, which may be $20-40 an acre, doesn't guarantee anyone access to it even though it is often better habitat than what may be in PLOTS. Coverlocks is a habitat and access program, but its acreage is pretty small when compared to PLOTS and CRP. School sections are there to help fund local school districts, so renting it out as pasture or cropland provides a heck of a lot more income to the schools than not allowing ag use of it.




I get it, we have lost a crap load of habitat over the past 20 years, but I don't see solutions here outside of rolling back ag program changes and wishful thinking about how other's manage their assets for our benefit. I know I don't manage my land for the express benefit of others, I do what I want with it so long as it's legal and in my own best interests. Which I try to do while keeping it as good habitat, but then again...I never said I was a good businessman.