Habitat Hunting Access Summit

[Eatsleeptrap]

Then stop bitching about lack of good habitat and hunting access.

Go ahead and show me where I bitched about lack of good habitat and hunting access on this thread and I guess I will stop....

 

[KDM]

Go ahead and show me where I bitched about lack of good habitat and hunting access on this thread and I guess I will stop....

Why does spending tax dollars on habitat you have no access to bother you if you felt you have enough good habitat and hunting access?

 

[Eatsleeptrap]

Why does spending tax dollars on habitat you have no access to bother you if you felt you have enough good habitat and hunting access?

I have shot at least four deer out of the downstairs bathroom window. How is that for access and habitat? That was you assuming. So you're not going to show me where I bitched? Got it. If unelected bureaucrats saying they are going to spend your tax dollars one way, the Outdoor Heritage Fund, then doing it another way doesn't bother you, you must be getting a check.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I have shot at least four deer out of the downstairs bathroom window. How is that for access and habitat? That was you assuming. So you're not going to show me where I bitched? Got it. If unelected bureaucrats saying they are going to spend your tax dollars one way, the Outdoor Heritage Fund, then doing it another way doesn't bother you, you must be getting a check.

The Outdoor Heritage Fund. Anyone pay attention to that thing?

North Dakota's Outdoor Heritage Fund was established in 2013 as a multi-million dollar program to provide grants to state agencies, tribal governments, political subdivisions, and nonprofit organizations, with higher priority given to projects that enhance conservation practices in this state by......

https://www.ndic.nd.gov/research-gr...or-heritage-fund-grant-rounds-final-reports-0

Approved Projects​

25-240: Western Big Game Connectivity and Habitat Fragmentation

• Sponsor: Mule Deer Foundation
• Objective: Construct 60+ miles of wildlife-friendly fencing in western ND.
• Funded Amount: $750,000
• Total Project Cost: $1,400,571
  • Final Report

25-241: Planting for the Future

• Sponsor: North Dakota Petroleum Foundation
• Objective: Planting of 340,000 trees across North Dakota.
• Funded Amount: $220,177
• Total Project Cost: $1,847,740
  • Final Report

25-242: ND Grazing Management Toolbox

• Sponsor: Audubon Great Plains
• Objective: Financial assistance for landowners to improve grassland habitat on 7,500 acres.
• Funded Amount: $635,000
• Total Project Cost: $1,234,506
  • Final Report

25-243: Working Grasslands Partnership 7

• Sponsor: ND Natural Resources Trust
• Objective: Cost-share for landowners to transition CRP acres into grazing.
• Funded Amount: $762,500
• Total Project Cost: $1,267,500
  • Final Report

NDA, check out ND Natural Resources Trust. Click on Working Grasslands Partnership 7

Page 9, the money is used to purchase seeding, fencing, pipelines, wells, and cover crops for ranchers.
Page 10 the money

Click on any Approved Project and a regular recipient is North Dakota Natural Resources Trust.
The Trust was created at the end of the Garrison Diversion Project with a $25 million dollar trust set up by the federal government.

The Board:
https://ndnrt.com/about-the-trust/board-of-directors/

Notice the National Wildlife Federation gets a seat. Dave Ditloff. He is the guy who brought the initiated measure to ND about the Clean Water Wildlife and Parks. It would have diverted 5% of the Oil extraction taxes away from the general treasury into their coffers about $100 million per year.

Dave Ditloff wanted a board comprised of nine and they had to be biologists, ecologists or wildlife managers and they wanted to purchase land and easements on land. NDWF lobbyist Mike Donahue was a commonsense fellow and said in the meeting minutes this will never fly.

And it didn't, the measure failed 80/20 but the State decided to give them something and created the Outdoor Heritage Fund at $10 or $15 million.

Of course, Keith Trego, https://ndnrt.com/about-the-trust/staff/ was a sponsor of the ballot measure and now his NDNRT is in the Outdoor Heritage Fund applying for the money and then doling it out to ranchers for seeding, fencing, pipelines, wells, and cover crops.

NDA, by now you guys have figured out I oppose building more government. It is not the answer.

The NDNRT has outlived its usefulness, the doors should be closed and the $25 million in Trust should go back to the federal government.

The measure 4 guys trying to get rid of real estate taxes are trying to do it all in one full swing. They need to take it in increments. Write language to close the Outdoor Heritage fund and give the savings to the taxpayers in property tax relief. Allow the people to keep more of the money they have earned, and they can do their own conservation work. Ranchers should have to purchase their own seed, fencing, pipelines, wells, and cover crops.

 

[Eatsleeptrap]

The Outdoor Heritage Fund. Anyone pay attention to that thing?

North Dakota's Outdoor Heritage Fund was established in 2013 as a multi-million dollar program to provide grants to state agencies, tribal governments, political subdivisions, and nonprofit organizations, with higher priority given to projects that enhance conservation practices in this state by......

https://www.ndic.nd.gov/research-gr...or-heritage-fund-grant-rounds-final-reports-0

Approved Projects​

25-240: Western Big Game Connectivity and Habitat Fragmentation

• Sponsor: Mule Deer Foundation
• Objective: Construct 60+ miles of wildlife-friendly fencing in western ND.
• Funded Amount: $750,000
• Total Project Cost: $1,400,571
  • Final Report

25-241: Planting for the Future

• Sponsor: North Dakota Petroleum Foundation
• Objective: Planting of 340,000 trees across North Dakota.
• Funded Amount: $220,177
• Total Project Cost: $1,847,740
  • Final Report

25-242: ND Grazing Management Toolbox

• Sponsor: Audubon Great Plains
• Objective: Financial assistance for landowners to improve grassland habitat on 7,500 acres.
• Funded Amount: $635,000
• Total Project Cost: $1,234,506
  • Final Report

25-243: Working Grasslands Partnership 7

• Sponsor: ND Natural Resources Trust
• Objective: Cost-share for landowners to transition CRP acres into grazing.
• Funded Amount: $762,500
• Total Project Cost: $1,267,500
  • Final Report

NDA, check out ND Natural Resources Trust. Click on Working Grasslands Partnership 7

Page 9, the money is used to purchase seeding, fencing, pipelines, wells, and cover crops for ranchers.
Page 10 the money

Click on any Approved Project and a regular recipient is North Dakota Natural Resources Trust.
The Trust was created at the end of the Garrison Diversion Project with a $25 million dollar trust set up by the federal government.

The Board:
https://ndnrt.com/about-the-trust/board-of-directors/

Notice the National Wildlife Federation gets a seat. Dave Ditloff. He is the guy who brought the initiated measure to ND about the Clean Water Wildlife and Parks. It would have diverted 5% of the Oil extraction taxes away from the general treasury into their coffers about $100 million per year.

Dave Ditloff wanted a board comprised of nine and they had to be biologists, ecologists or wildlife managers and they wanted to purchase land and easements on land. NDWF lobbyist Mike Donahue was a commonsense fellow and said in the meeting minutes this will never fly.

And it didn't, the measure failed 80/20 but the State decided to give them something and created the Outdoor Heritage Fund at $10 or $15 million.

Of course, Keith Trego, https://ndnrt.com/about-the-trust/staff/ was a sponsor of the ballot measure and now his NDNRT is in the Outdoor Heritage Fund applying for the money and then doling it out to ranchers for seeding, fencing, pipelines, wells, and cover crops.

NDA, by now you guys have figured out I oppose building more government. It is not the answer.

The NDNRT has outlived its usefulness, the doors should be closed and the $25 million in Trust should go back to the federal government.

The measure 4 guys trying to get rid of real estate taxes are trying to do it all in one full swing. They need to take it in increments. Write language to close the Outdoor Heritage fund and give the savings to the taxpayers in property tax relief. Allow the people to keep more of the money they have earned, and they can do their own conservation work. Ranchers should have to purchase their own seed, fencing, pipelines, wells, and cover crops.

Started out with money to increase habitat and access, neither of which should be spent on private property. Thanks for posting this.

 

[KDM]

I have shot at least four deer out of the downstairs bathroom window. How is that for access and habitat? That was you assuming. So you're not going to show me where I bitched? Got it. If unelected bureaucrats saying they are going to spend your tax dollars one way, the Outdoor Heritage Fund, then doing it another way doesn't bother you, you must be getting a check.

Oh I got it alright. You're bitching right now, but only you seems to not get it. The CRP program must give you hemorrhoids. All those tax dollars going to private landowners and all that habitat that produced all those booming populations of deer, pheasants, and other game that directly benefited the public. Often mentioned on this site as "The Glory Days". Even though most of it was posted. Oh the horror. The thing is, that the vast majority of private landowners are NOT going to let the general public tromp on their land. A select few, yes, but not an open free for all. I already illustrated how using public funds for habitat on private land would directly benefit the public (as also proven by crp), but I guess that's unimportant to this exchange. Instead of looking at the possibilities, it's much more important to accuse me of getting a check. SMH. Buddy, I let a bunch of people hunt my land every year, both youth and adults. Many here on NDA have done so and more NDA'ers will in the future I'm sure. So if anyone should "get a check" for improving habitat and hunting access, it would be me. However, I don't. I use my own money. It's more satisfying that way to me. So enjoy your porcelain throneroom, pants on ankles hunting experience. I'm sure it's a real gas.

 

[Davey Crockett]

I emailed Doug Goehring twice asking about planting hemp for cover crop along with a food plot and leaving the hemp for winter cover. Not a peep in return, my guess is that once someone pays the fees to legally grow a hemp crop it is theirs to do whatever they want with it but he didn't want to be the one to come out and say it. Somewhere there is a perfect spot out there without habitat for a test area to see if it would work as well as I think it would.

 

[Trip McNeely]

Im not going down the rabbit hole some of you fine gents have seemed to accidentally slip into but I will say this….. I’d rather tax dollars be put into ANY habitat. Both public and private. And line KDM said go hard after any private land rhat adjoins public. Here’s my take. If you can pump up production numbers of any animal uo to let’s say 100-150% percent of carrying capacity on any given parcel of land….. year over year that equates to animals thay will get pushed out or need to move on to find new breeding grounds. This will keep animals coming and going to the less desirable or more heavily hunted areas. I could take you all to at least 20 spots i have for pheasants on public land….. i kill birds every time because the stuff next to it has shit pots of birds and they always trickle over the fenceline. For me it’s a simple numbers game with carrying capacity. We need to produce more animals on the landscape than some areas csn handle in hopes they disburse or hunter harvest is high. Basically we need to overproduce

 

[Eatsleeptrap]

Oh I got it alright. You're bitching right now, but only you seems to not get it. The CRP program must give you hemorrhoids. All those tax dollars going to private landowners and all that habitat that produced all those booming populations of deer, pheasants, and other game that directly benefited the public. Often mentioned on this site as "The Glory Days". Even though most of it was posted. Oh the horror. The thing is, that the vast majority of private landowners are NOT going to let the general public tromp on their land. A select few, yes, but not an open free for all. I already illustrated how using public funds for habitat on private land would directly benefit the public (as also proven by crp), but I guess that's unimportant to this exchange. Instead of looking at the possibilities, it's much more important to accuse me of getting a check. SMH. Buddy, I let a bunch of people hunt my land every year, both youth and adults. Many here on NDA have done so and more NDA'ers will in the future I'm sure. So if anyone should "get a check" for improving habitat and hunting access, it would be me. However, I don't. I use my own money. It's more satisfying that way to me. So enjoy your porcelain throneroom, pants on ankles hunting experience. I'm sure it's a real gas.

KDM said:
Then stop bitching about lack of good habitat and hunting access.

Jane you ignorant slut, I am complaining about how money is allocated and actually spent (how the government operates outside the peoples intent) and not complaining about lack of habitat and access. They are two completely different things. There is some overlap here, I'm complaining about the process. That is all.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Started out with money to increase habitat and access, neither of which should be spent on private property. Thanks for posting this.

Anyone one individual can present a plan/proposal to the OHF committee. You have ten minutes. It can be a great plan. But if you do not have a non-profit as a partner for cost sharing, matching grants, technical assistance, contractual services, your plan is DOA.

What are contractual services? That is where you pay a college kid to walk around the area looking for arrowheads. Everyone gets their bite out of a project.

Contractual Services - This grant proposal is requesting $10,000 for any additionally required contracted services for items such as cultural resources, specialized services, equipment rentals, habitat assessments, promotional services, partnership coordination meetings, and for any additional delivery and/or program monitoring. If contracted services request is not utilized during the grant period for these services, these funds would be used for additional grazing systems identified in the proposal. The Trust will provide a cash match of $10,000 toward contracted services and/or outreach, education, support, and workshops that help landowners receive information about technical assistance. If these funds are not utilized for contracted services, the funds would be used for additional grazing system developments.

Project Staffing -This grant proposal requests $10,000 of project staffing for the Trust from OHF. Additional staffing costs will be provided by the Trust, ND PFW and DU will be considered in-kind match based on actual costs of salary, benefits, and travel. The Trust will provide a minimum of $17,500 of in-kind match, ND PFW will provide $15,000 of in-kind match and DU will provide $15,000 of in-kind match. Staffing activities includes all activities to complete program promotion and outreach, meeting with landowners, providing technical assistance, completing landowner agreements, partnering with state, federal, local, and nongovernmental organizations, processing payments, providing agreement monitoring, and completing all grant administration.

 

[Slappy]

At first glance, I would tend to be in the camp opposed to public money being spent on private land without public access. That is a completely reasonable position for any fiscal conservative.

However, numerous things unique to this state make that position problematic for wildlife and hunters. Nodak has a low percentage of public land, a high percentage of crop and pasture land which is cut or grazed annually, extremely limited wooded areas, brutal climate, and a high percentage of resident hunters along with many NR's.

I would not agree with spending public or NDGF money stocking fish in a private lake with no public access. The difference there is fish can't walk to the public lake a quarter mile down the road.

I would like to see more done with the school trust lands but by law those are not managed for wildlife and hunting. Unfortunately, changing trust land use is a political minefield.

 

[Trip McNeely]

At first glance, I would tend to be in the camp opposed to public money being spent on private land without public access. That is a completely reasonable position for any fiscal conservative.

However, numerous things unique to this state make that position problematic for wildlife and hunters. Nodak has a low percentage of public land, a high percentage of crop and pasture land which is cut or grazed annually, extremely limited wooded areas, brutal climate, and a high percentage of resident hunters along with many NR's.

I would not agree with spending public or NDGF money stocking fish in a private lake with no public access. The difference there is fish can't walk to the public lake a quarter mile down the road.

I would like to see more done with the school trust lands but by law those are not managed for wildlife and hunting. Unfortunately, changing trust land use is a political minefield.

Right. Thats how a lot of us feel I think. No one wants to subsidize private with public funds however in the case of animals and the ND landscape the best bet is to overproduce on strategic parcels or areas that act more or less as a stock tank for the surrounding areas that do have public access. If there was 100% access to all of nd lands and animal density were the same across the state I’d venture most animals would be dead by now the way things get hunted on public ground. Having strategic areas with little to limited access with production numbers over carrying capacity is one way to keep the surrounding areas “stocked” so to speak. The more animals on the landscape the better the hunting will be for everyone as they reach carrying capacity and need to move ajd venture out

 

[Jiffy]

Oh there are plenty of “stocking grounds”!!

 

[Trip McNeely]

Apparently not enough or arent in strategic enough locations

 

[Tymurrey]

Anyone plant any of the bee and butterfly habitat seed? With the cap on CRP and not being able to get my grassland habitat program cost shared i am looking at cheaper alternatives. Would be about 10 acres of their seed this year. Plan on planting about 5 acres of sudan grass and corn rows next to it as winter cover and use the pollinator as nesting and brooding cover.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Write language to close the Outdoor Heritage fund and give the savings to the taxpayers in property tax relief.

Fritz using federal money to relieve personal property tax????? Wouldn't that be the kind of thing DOGE is looking for?

Trip your on track with your population idea. I can't remember the proper terminology for population dynamics study, I'm forgetful. It defines areas that contribute to incteased wildlife populations and areas that contribute to the decline of wildlife populations. Back when we had CRP private land produced wildlife populations and public land because of short distance local migration benefited. With the loss of CRP it has reversed, but with low acreage of public land in North Dakota it doesn't result in enough surplus on the land to replace the losses on private land.
North Dakota has comparatively so little public land that if you increase production 5% on private land it will produce more animals than increasing animals on public land by 100%. We have little choice than look for landowners willing to put any effort into better habitat. It does little good to grow grass in summer then cut it so there is no winter thermal cover. It is sad that some will take the money with little to no consideration for fellow tax paying citizens.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Anyone plant any of the bee and butterfly habitat seed? With the cap on CRP and not being able to get my grassland habitat program cost shared i am looking at cheaper alternatives. Would be about 10 acres of their seed this year. Plan on planting about 5 acres of sudan grass and corn rows next to it as winter cover and use the pollinator as nesting and brooding cover.

Seeded a pollinator plot for a fellow. Some of the seed is fluffy so we mixed grain in with it to get it to flow through the drill. A cover crop of grain seeded at less than half of normal rate is a good idea to suppress weeds.

Animals love the weeds but too many of them can kill out the longer-term goal of pollinator plants.

Use sorghum sudan instead of regular sudan. It will make seed wildlife can utilize. Usually about six feet tall, it makes a difference in deep snow.

Millet is great stuff for wildlife but breaks down at first snow. Mix a little in with the sorghum sudan which will help the millet stay up.

Foxtail millets don't work as well pearls. Use Red proso or White Japanese pearl.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Write language to close the Outdoor Heritage fund and give the savings to the taxpayers in property tax relief.

Fritz using federal money to relieve personal property tax????? Wouldn't that be the kind of thing DOGE is looking for?

PrairieGhost, could you give me your definition to what you think the ND Outdoor Heritage Fund is?

 

[PrairieGhost]

Fritz using federal money to relieve personal property tax????? Wouldn't that be the kind of thing DOGE is looking for?

PrairieGhost, could you give me your definition to what you think the ND Outdoor Heritage Fund is?

Your statement follows:

The Trust was created at the end of the Garrison Diversion Project with a $25 million dollar trust set up by the federal government.

I do see where I may have taken the wrong fork in the road. So what did they call the $25 million from the feds, and what was the states dollar amount for the outdoor heritage fund? Was that the one you and Farm Bureau hated so much? Are you working against hunters for Farm Bureau again? Farmers harvest a lot of federal money. Can hunters have just a little from the feds and state?

 

[zoops]

So we (I think most are in agreement) think that we don't have enough good habitat on the ground. Without state or federal incentives to landowners to leave land as wildlife habitat, do we think this will ever change?