Habitat Hunting Access Summit

[zoops]

I have it on my radar yet to watch. The problem i see is that habitat costs plenty of money and time without seeing quick results. All the trees i'm planting i may get to enjoy after retirement. Trees cost lots of money and time after the initial planting with time in care and replacements. I'm working on doing more tall native grasses but with spray and prep and weed control i'm not sure if i can afford or keep up with it. All this along with the loss of rental income from pasture or cropland. I'm putting in some small plots of alfalfa too since most of our alfalfa fields got broke up for cropland and it seems like for bugs and food it works pretty good. Something I was thinking about this weekend was that as farms get bigger it seems like the farmers get less chance to enjoy hunting because they are always busy and less farmers getting to enjoy hunting. When farms were smaller there was more farmers who hunted and valued the wildlife more for their enjoyment. Habitat and hunting are definitely in a cultural shift.

Very good points. It would be nice if there were more $ available to help cost share or provide yearly payments for landowners who do want to do the work you are (I know there are some programs like this, but imagine it could be expanded greatly). Still going to be difficult to compete to put in trees or buffer strips, etc. instead of renting it out for $100/acre or whatever.

 

[Icepirate]

Did anyone else find it ironic that Governor Armstrong gave the opening speech? Wasn't he the sponsor of the North Dakota Trust Lands Completion Act? Also, I don't think enough people are aware that North Dakota supports Utah's lawsuit regarding the transfer of federal lands to state land. This is all being done under the guise of "states rights." Not to derail the thread, but this lawsuit is very important when it comes to access. I know it's been covered in other threads, but most people I've talked to aren't aware of what's at stake with Utah's lawsuit. Its no surprise that North Dakota supports the lawsuit unfortunately. There are many reasons the transfer of federal land to state is bad for hunters but here's a short list.

1. This land already belongs to all the people of the U.S. Don't try to fool us and say it's for our benefit.

2. States are constitutionally mandated to manage state lands for a profit. What happens when they aren't making enough money by leasing it? They sell it. There's a long history of states selling off land they were granted at statehood.

3. In most cases state land doesn't offer the same opportunities as federal land. Take colorado for example. In colorado it is illegal to recreate on state land. State land is not considered public land in Colorado. In Colorado alone, a transfer of federal land to state land would cost access to around 23 million acres I believe. ( might be off some on that #). State lands in some states don't allow camping also. there are too many other restrictions to get into...

4. Who will the land be sold to? Most likely the highest bidder. (probably not a local rancher or farmer)

5. The lawsuit was started by Utah (enough said).

I could list more, but I've probably derailed the thread enough. This is very important on the subject of access though. Right now they changed the lawsuit to state BLM land, but we know it wouldn't stop there. Would National Wildlife Refuges be next ? Maybe the Little Missouri National Grasslands could be auctioned off to the highest bidder?

 

[Icepirate]

I should add while we're all busy bickering about non residents, CWD, electronic posting, baiting, and other issues, this is happening somewhat quietly right under our noses. Many times it seems North Dakota hunters would rather argue about smaller issues than get united and stand up against a major issue. In this case a potential major loss of ACCESS across the U.S, including land in North Dakota

 

[Trip McNeely]

I should add while we're all busy bickering about non residents, CWD, electronic posting, baiting, and other issues, this is happening somewhat quietly right under our noses. Many times it seems North Dakota hunters would rather argue about smaller issues than get united and stand up against a major issue. In this case a potential major loss of ACCESS across the U.S, including land in North Dakota

I’ll agree with everything you’ve said except the cwd issue. Thats a major issue if you start peeling back all the layers of it. That alone has as many issues as the access issue. If not rectified immediately it will cause even more issues with access and opportunities. What happens when the dept starts “targeted removal” which theyve openly said they were doing now. What happens to the pheasant-turkey-antelope-turkey in those areas when the deer are wiped out? You think the predators are going to just starve and die? No this entire shitshow called CWD will have extremely negative impacts on all wildlife which will in turn cause decreased access. Period. The fight against the mismanagement of our deer herd coupled with the CWD fairy is in my opinion the very reason access is getting harder.

 

[bravo]

Rep. Anderson’s non-answers and lack of awareness (his solutions: having farmers grow hemp on saline land, hunting abandoned farmsteads because they are what holds deer) were alarming. You could tell it pained him to say he’d allow a kid to hunt his land, but he read the room. These are the people who hold the keys to our sport and upholding the heritage, and it’s vital that we remind them of that.

This doesn’t have to be farming vs hunting.

 

[Icepirate]

I’ll agree with everything you’ve said except the cwd issue. Thats a major issue if you start peeling back all the layers of it. That alone has as many issues as the access issue. If not rectified immediately it will cause even more issues with access and opportunities.

when i said "smaller issues" that probably wasn't the best choice of words. Other issues being discussed on this thread are important too. The problem is getting so focused on one issue we forget about law suit's or legislation on a national level

 

[Trip McNeely]

when i said "smaller issues" that probably wasn't the best choice of words. Other issues being discussed on this thread are important too. The issue is getting so focused on one issue we forget about law suit's or legislation on a national level

Agreed. The way they silently do these type of deals should scare everyone. This has a Yellowstone type of back door deal written all over it

 

[bravo]

I’ll agree with everything you’ve said except the cwd issue. Thats a major issue if you start peeling back all the layers of it. That alone has as many issues as the access issue. If not rectified immediately it will cause even more issues with access and opportunities.

I know people are pissed about baiting, but is that the main issue? Is it the money? What needs to be rectified? Honest questions, not being a dick.

The crux is, you play into the legislative game and put game and fish regulating into the lawmakers hands, guess what you will get?

Paid access only, tags distributed by acres owned. Kings and serfs.

 

[Icepirate]

https://gf.nd.gov/magazine/2022/oct/closer-look-at-the-blue-squares

not sure if the link will work, but here's a few interesting quotes for those that might not think the Utah lawsuit would affect North Dakota access that much. Here's a few stats that show what North Dakota has done with their state land.


“At statehood, North Dakota was granted about 2.6 million acres from the federal government to be used primarily to generate money for public education,” said Jacob Lardy, land management specialist with the Department of Trust Lands.

“As a young state with vast expanses of prairie to be homesteaded, the need for funding was daunting and the North Dakota Land Department (precursor to the NDDTL) sold off school trust land to farmers and ranchers in the early 1900s to quickly fund education costs.

“By the 1970s the Land Board realized that continued land sales would forever deplete the trusts of their land holdings. At the time, 80% of the original congressional grant had been sold, a decision was made to restrict sales to small, difficult to manage tracts and to retain the remainder.” (I would argue on this one who determines what a small, difficult to manage tract is)


"Today, Lardy said, the Department of Trust Lands manages more than 706,000 surface acres across the state that are leased for agricultural purposes, with livestock grazing being the dominate land use."



The argument can be made that the land was sold a long time ago, which is true. But can anyone honestly say the current ND legislature wouldn't love to sell off some "small, difficult to manage tracts" to the highest bidder?

 

[Trip McNeely]

I

I know people are pissed about baiting, but is that the main issue? Is it the money? What needs to be rectified? Honest questions, not being a dick.

The crux is, you play into the legislative game and put game and fish regulating into the lawmakers hands, guess what you will get?

Paid access only, tags distributed by acres owned. Kings and serfs.

baiting isnt even the main issue here. The game and fish wants to spin it as such. They want to paint those opposed to it as wanting to shoot deer over bait. “Lazy hunters” Thats just purely untrue and couldn’t be further from the truth. To most it’s a pure game and fish mismanagement issue based off of their “ best available” science which is totally garbage and has holes all over it with multiple points of contention shredding their theories already. Restriction of hunting over an otherwise legal method because of a fictional crusade is a major private property issue. Who’s to say it will stop there? What happens when they need to use surveillance on land by use of force or drone because of cwd? Right now the course Jeb is on will have surfdom a lot faster than people who actually want to meaningfully protect the herd. Indiscriminately slaughtering herds will not help protect anything. For christs sake my kids have killed more deer ND than CWD has or ever will. None of what is being done now makes any sense if you are actually wanting to protect the herd. Killing something to protect it makes absolutely no fucking sense unless you are psychotic. When deer and other game numbers are high than more access is granted. When game is not abundant landowners become more protective and allow less access. It’s really pretty simple. How anyone can logically sit back and watch what the game and fish is doing and be ok with it, based purely off the scientific aspect of it all with no regard to “baiting” has to be blind or a bit retarded.

 

[SerchforPerch]

Had time to go back and watch a decent share of the video. Couple things that raised my eyebrows a bit were when Kevin Kading was talking around the 54' mark and threw out a number of $150M/year to support 3 million acres of habitat. Would be an interesting topic for the legislature to throw more money at conservation, but probably a hard sell in our conservative ag-dominated state.
The landowner's comments were interesting. Sounded like he lets people hunt and has quite a bit of land in plots, but also mentioned not letting people hunt if they pull in to his yard dressed up in camo with a truck full of gear, saying that he'd like people to stop by before the season.
The comments from Rep. Anderson (about 1:48:00) I thought were kind of weak when he was asked about potential ways to help habitat issues saying "it's tough to find money for habitat" but that we have marginal farmland that could be planted to sorghum or hemp and that we have farmsteads that provide habitat - not sure what he was getting at with the farmstead comment.
Was pleased to hear Rep. Porter say that it's probably time to tweak NR waterfowl numbers and it was a little annoying to hear him say they've found solutions over the years. IMO they haven't, they've just made it a free for all for NR.
Obviously no real solutions were presented but hopefully the conversations continue.

I too went back and watched the video. It was good to get a refresher on what the ND landscape looked like in the late 90's and early 2000's from a habitat and overall quality of hunting standpoint as I was fortunate to witness it firsthand.. BY the end of the recording I didn't feel like any likely solutions were provided nor did the summit provide me with hopes of change in the near future. Would be nice to hear more on Armstrong's future vision on habitat improvement, upcoming changes, etc. knowing his support for the outdoorsman and protecting the hunting heritage of ND, but perhaps not high on his agenda at this moment..
I thought it was interesting that there is 45M acres of ground in this state and having less than 1% in CRP is all it took to produce some the best wildlife numbers we ever saw. I think the GF do very well on the fisheries, but big game, fowl and pheasants need some help - the bar charts are proof. I think the science is pretty simple in this sense - build it and they will come!

 

[Tymurrey]

I'm still learning how to build it so they come and stay. I have 160 acre pasture, some wooded draws, grassland, brushy areas, and a dugout. 120 acres of that gets grazed and 40 acres has about 7 acres of food plots, some new tree rows that i don't mow between with good cover, a big brushy hillside with some 6 year old tree rows, and a corn/wheat feed pile. Ag land and other pasture around it. I let about 30 pheasants go in that pasture this year thinking they would stay with the wild ones. Those birds were seen miles away within a few weeks. I have seen 3 of them that have stayed on mine is all. I'm sure some died from predators and weather but it amazed me how fast those birds moved out of the release area and i don't know why. 99.9% sure they were my released birds being seen as they were the melanistic ones. I think one chukar made it through or stuck around up there so far and two in my yard yet.

 

[Tymurrey]

I should mention too that i hunt an area in montana for mule deer that doesn't remind of being to much different than around home for type of terrain. mix of ag and pasture land with some hilly country but nothing to rugged. There is an abundance of mule deer and crazy amounts of sharptails and partridge along with some heavy pockets of pheasants. The main difference i can see out there is they still have some pockets of CRP and their grasses are more of the native varieties than the brome which seems to dominate everything around here. One little snow and it's all laid down where out there it snows and the grasses are still standing.