National Grasslands

[Ericb]

GST, Your first link didn't work the other two only were awards for being good stewards of their land. Please show me where Ag is working to directly benefit sportsman. Using land responsibly is great and I applaud. But those links are much like you contribution to this site. They are only mitigating damage done because of their existance.

 

[PrairieGhost]

From Fishingbuddy

[h=1]Plainsman[/h][h=2]Points[/h]

• General: 615

Total (all categories): 615

[h=3]History[/h]Member for14 years 1 month

From Nodakoutdoors

Plainsman Supporting Member Posts: 17266Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 12:54 pm

Fritz I was on Fishingbuddy before I was on nodakoutdoors. Don't you get tired of me proving that what you say about me isn't true? I understand you want to tell damaging tales about me, but you should be careful enough to make sure you don't get caught first. This is just like your story about how I avoided Viet Nam. That first trick was kind of low, and since that child is no longer alive it's even lower. Try to be a decent person.

 

[gst]

They are only mitigating damage done because of their existance.

And with that I am supposed to believe you are an objective mindset? ;:;banghead

Your claims only go to show your lack of understanding that thru these environmental stewardship awards more and more producers are not "mitigating damage" but actually improving range land conditions beyond what nature does on her own which also benefit wildlife which also benefit sportsmen.

Case in point CRP.

CRP contracts that have sat idled for 15 or in some cases 20 years have been proven ot be detrimental for wildlife in many cases.

Hell even the NWF that SUED to stop grazing of CRP now reognizes the benefits of managed haying and grazing on ecosystems providing better wildlife habitat in CRP.

https://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Prot...ill-Success-Stories/Success-Expiring-CRP.aspx

"The strategy produces more forage than traditional whole-pasture grazing, reduces erosion, and helps reduce pest problems. The strategy also boosts wildlife habitat because it results in grasslands with a mosaic of different plant heights which can provide cover and nesting."

Teh NDG&F praise managed grazing systems.......

https://gf.nd.gov/gnf/private-lands/docs/life-after-crp.pdf

Changing deferment periods for each pasture from year-toyearwill improve plant vigor and provide undisturbed nestingcover in at least a portion of the grazing unit. Well-managedgrazing systems can provide a diverse, vigorous grass and forbcommunity rich in insect population

And yet here you claim ranchers are merely "mitigating damages done because of their existance " and apparently expect to be viewed with an open mind to be worth the time to have a discussion with?

What exactly is your point and purpose of making a statement such as this?

"They are only mitigating damage done because of their existance"

 

[Ericb]

I'm not worth the time to have a discussion with, but then you ask a question...

I asked you to provide links to show how ag is helping sportsman. You than only provide links braging about how some ranchers are taking care of their land. I'm not trying to attack ag. I understand things need to be done to feed the population. But you attack anything that isn't directly supporting AG. You don't bother to show where AG is really trying to help sportsman. The comment and refering to you existence on this OUTDOOR site is you are only here to promote your AG agenda. I know Plainsman spoutting of lies... We all here them, but again your just pushing your agenda like he is.

Why are you so afraid of PG?

Why do you feel you have to constantly stand up for something at a place that generally doesn't disapprove of it?

 

[gst]

I'm not worth the time to have a discussion with, but then you ask a question...

I asked you to provide links to show how ag is helping sportsman. You than only provide links braging about how some ranchers are taking care of their land. I'm not trying to attack ag. I understand things need to be done to feed the population. But you attack anything that isn't directly supporting AG. You don't bother to show where AG is really trying to help sportsman. The comment and refering to you existence on this OUTDOOR site is you are only here to promote your AG agenda. I know Plainsman spoutting of lies... We all here them, but again your just pushing your agenda like he is.

Why are you so afraid of PG?

Why do you feel you have to constantly stand up for something at a place that generally doesn't disapprove of it?

So we now go from ranchers being people that damage landscapes to being braggarts...........

Now you claim I "attack" anything that is not supporting ag...........yet in a separate thread I have been pretty candid and honest about my belief that govt involvement in ag is not good for ag and why.

It appears rather than wishing ot have a worthwhile discussion you are trying ot start an argument. You asked for examples how ag groups are supporting sportsmen. I shared links to ag groups that are acknowledging good stewardship practices that several groups believe benefit wildlife which in turn one can say benefits sportsmen.

You then asked for links and I politely shared them. Yet look where you have taken this.

"afraid".come on Eric why post something so childish and stupid. plainsman simply posts similar stupid shit that most often when about agriculture is simply not true. period.

I understand most sportsmen are not like plainsman. I understand that most on here support agriculture ......well despite those that claim to while at the same time suggesting livestock producers are merely trying to mitigate damage" when they rise above and beyond their peers to be recognized byt not only those peers but those i the wildlife and sportsmen arena.

I would much more enjoy having good dialogue about issues than responding ot personal posts such as you have started. You asked a question I responded in a non personal manner, yet look where we now are.............

Nodak Angler is a FAR better site when it comes ot those that would bash on agriculture. Many of the old familiar faces on other sites including the one plains moderates that would engage in that are not here, maybe they simply got tired of someone sharing a few facts and links to set the record straight when others would post less than factual claims and accusations.

Who knows.

If you truly are interested in seeing how ag benefits sportsmen, stop on up next Dec with your bow if you haven't filled your tag. We have "mitigated damages" on our lands around here so well we generally have a few hundred deer spending the winter months in our trees we plant and wetlands we leave that get a bit annoying with the damage they can do.

More than a few sportsmen enjoyed their time here last winter helping "mitigate" those "damages" .

 

[Fritz the Cat]

gst, read your link from the national wildlife federation:

https://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Prot...ill-Success-Stories/Success-Expiring-CRP.aspx

I got to the bottom and there it is:

This is one of a series of Conservation Success Stories published by National Wildlife Federation with support from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

David and Lucile Packard or as in Hewlett and Packard. How many of us have HP Office equipment. They made a lot of money and now have a tax shelter foundation.

Foundations exist at the pleasure of the federal government to do charitable/philanthropy work. The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Federation is an affiliate of the National Wildlife Federation.

The current president of NDWF is:

Mike McEnroe retired biologist from the US Fish and Wildlife Service

The past president was :

David Brandt current biologist for the US Geological Survey (PG worked with him)

A past Director was H. Thomas Sklebar retired biologist from US geological Survey (PG worked with him)

And the list goes on much like this.

Grassroots sportsmen group or controlled opposition org??

 

[wstnodak]

Ericb, if you want to understand what you are dealing with when trying to converse with gabe just read this. Seriously, it will make complete sense after you are done.

Your welcome.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-...ociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

 

[gst]

thee orgs are a lot like a small handful on here they claims ot "support" ag..............as long as ag operates how they say.

Your last question goes to the heart of this issue concerning these orgs and the credibility they hold with policy makers at the state level. Our legislators are smart enough to know that these orgs do NOT represent sportsmen in that sportsmen have no way to weigh in and be a part of developing the policies these orgs bring to the legislature.

It is a handful of elitists that drive policy in orgs like the NDWF, DU, BCH&A the Sierra Club and others. So when legislators give those policies backed by small handfuls of people little recognition some claim that ag and others have "bought" these legislators.

But what they do not accept as the truth is that the policies of say ag orgs that influence legislators are developed by actual members. Thru the process most ag orgs work under here in ND it is literally thousands of members that create, introduce, discuss and pass policy.

Legislators see a degree of credibility behind that so they listen. Even then from experience, it takes an investment by these members to go and testify to get legislators to listen and weigh considerations and support policy that is introduced.

More and more sportsmen are getting wise to these orgs taking their monies and not really listening. I have often wondered why these sportsmen orgs don't pattern their organizations after the true grass roots design most ag orgs are where it is actual members creating their policies.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Ericb, if you want to understand what you are dealing with when trying to converse with gabe just read this. Seriously, it will make complete sense after you are done.

Your welcome.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-...ociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

Thanks, I saved that to my favorites list. It was helpful reading it. I almost always post opinion and often get called a liar. Opinion is neither true or false it's simply your personal belief based on your life's experiences and what has been passed to you through reading and other people. Life is to short to spend time looking for something to back up your belief unless you know where to quickly find it.

Better yet, why not put a label on you that dismisses your perspective altogether?

Oh oh, I'm guilty of that. I often think liberal to dismiss an idea. Well live and learn I guess. I have been on both ends of that. Often a conservationist is called an ecologist. Actually there should be a division for ecologists. There are ecology scientists, and then there are ecological activists. One seeks truth, the other runs on emotion.

I am going to have to read that over and over again because I see some things I have done in debates. With a memory of an old geezer it will require reading this thing multiple times. Never to late to improve.

They’ll point out a mistake you committed seven years ago.

Isn't that the truth.

 

[Warvin]

Ericb, if you want to understand what you are dealing with when trying to converse with gabe just read this. Seriously, it will make complete sense after you are done.

Your welcome.

https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-...ociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

Wow! Great link. A must read for everyone on this forum. I think it would help everyone understand the keyboard warrior from Antler and how he operates much better. Most of this article is spot on!

 

[gst]

Holy west, what are you up to now 22 out of 25 posts on here aimed at maligning just one person and you share links trying to hilight physcological issues you think exist in others?

What you miss in your amateur attempt at diagnosis is that my responses to Erics questions were simple and direct with none of the "symptoms" from your link involved . Who chose to drive the conversation down the rabbit hole with claims and accusations?

West nodak, do you have any thoughts on the grasslands at all? :;:smokin

 

[Kurtr]

that article was gay as aids. If people believe wildlife are here in spite of ag they need to keep searching for a clue.

 

[PrairieGhost]

that article was gay as aids. If people believe wildlife are here in spite of ag they need to keep searching for a clue.

It changed things. There could be no wild bison herds. There were no white tail in our area until agriculture. Score one against and one for. I think the point of wildlife lives in spite of means they adapt or die. Lets look at a section of native prairie 200 years ago. What was there in my area right around Jamestown. Bison, antelope, plains grizzly, elk this list goes on. Where did they go? It wasn't all agriculture, but they don't exist here today. We have to go back to the base populations to say if or not agriculture benefits wildlife.

On the other hand a landowner who actually practices conservation absolutely benefits wildlife more than a landowner who does not. Yes wildlife in general does live in spite of agriculture, but we are all to blame because we all want to eat. So one can't point a finger without some guilt of their own. The only finger pointing can be at the dirt miners, not the conservation farmer.

Edit: Ooops I missed your humor Kurtr. Good one.

that article was gay as aids.

I just have to reread the article to see where that was again. Sort of like me calling someone liberal.

 

[Kurtr]

come on the buffalo were all killed by hunters along with elk and bears so i dont know if that is a good look for us.

- - - Updated - - -

dont forget waterfowl hunters also about wiped them out

 

[gst]

Thanks, I saved that to my favorites list. It was helpful reading it. I almost always post opinion and often get called a liar. Opinion is neither true or false it's simply your personal belief based on your life's experiences and what has been passed to you through reading and other people.Life is to short to spend time looking for something to back up your belief unless you know where to quickly find it..

Originally Posted by PrairieGhost
Also when you talk about cheap food please be honest with us. You keep out milk from other states to keep prices up. You keep Canadian beef out to keep prices up. You keep Canadian wheat out to keep prices up. We could have much cheaper food, but we do want to support you. You can't have it all.

So plains, are these three claims "opinions" , "beliefs" or simply lies?

Thank you for actually admitting you do not bother to "spend time" to know if what you post is actually fact or truth.

Jeesh.

Say west, warvin, what is the clinical term for someone that chastizes others to be honest and immediately follows that with three whoppers?

You guys are a bit like the liberal quick to label those you do not like even when you have never met somebody, racist, narcassist, misogynist, homophobe, zenaphobe.........

If you boys are going to come on the world wide web and drive conversations about national grasslands to personal stuff you might want to toughen up a bit or your feelers are going ot be hurt. Pull your big boy panties on and realize not everyone worries about your feelings on the interweb.

https://townhall.com/columnists/joh...als-really-mean-when-they-cry-racism-n1816401

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/opinions/democrats-the-party-who-cried-racist-talley/index.html


1) You disagree with me: "The Republican Party is racist." "Sarah Palin is racist." There's a famous Tea Party sign that reads, "It doesn't matter what this sign says. You'll call it racism anyway!" Why are these people and groups racist? They JUST ARE. "Everybody" knows it. In other words, liberals believe they can't be racist by virtue of being liberal; so people or groups that oppose them must be "racist" by default. It's about as intellectual as a five year old calling someone a "poopy head," but it's how they think.

- - - Updated - - -

;:;popcorn

 

[PrairieGhost]

come on the buffalo were all killed by hunters along with elk and bears so i dont know if that is a good look for us.

- - - Updated - - -

dont forget waterfowl hunters also about wiped them out

Yes, it was over all human activity, but the final phase of that was modern agriculture. Market hunters took the buffalo and other species. They were not the sportsmen of today. It was modern hunters who called for conservation. I don't know who wiped out the plains grizzly. Bottom line is they could not coexist with modern agriculture. The point is wildlife depending on the species exists because of agriculture and exists in spite of agriculture. Lets take overgrazing for example. The grasshopper sparrow can not tolerate overgrazing. The horned lark loves overgrazed pasture. When I walked ten to twelve miles a day (great plains) back in the late 1970's both heavily grazed and lightly grazed produced birds. The difference was species diversity. Heavily grazed normally had about three or four species while lightly grazed averaged sixteen to eighteen species. One found agriculture beneficial while another species would disappear. This isn't anti or pro agriculture it's just the way it is.

 

[Kurtr]

i dont believe that look out west where do you see lots of elk in the winter on farm fields. The biggest elk in Sodak are shot in corn fields each year.

 

[gst]

Yes, it was over all human activity, but the final phase of that was modern agriculture. Market hunters took the buffalo and other species. They were not the sportsmen of today. It was modern hunters who called for conservation. I don't know who wiped out the plains grizzly. Bottom line is they could not coexist with modern agriculture. The point is wildlife depending on the species exists because of agriculture and exists in spite of agriculture. Lets take overgrazing for example. The grasshopper sparrow can not tolerate overgrazing. The horned lark loves overgrazed pasture. When I walked ten to twelve miles a day (great plains) back in the late 1970's both heavily grazed and lightly grazed produced birds. The difference was species diversity. Heavily grazed normally had about three or four species while lightly grazed averaged sixteen to eighteen species. One found agriculture beneficial while another species would disappear. This isn't anti or pro agriculture it's just the way it is.

plains you really need to stop basing your "beliefs" and "opinions" on agriculture from the 1970's. Farmers then are not the agriculturalists of today.

What you do not take into consideration plains is that agriculture only exists if there is a market for what we produce. Those people that choose to live a life where a majority of their time was not producing food and fiber ultimately impact wildlife populations as much as ag producers themselves simply thru demand of food.

ag has evolved many times over since the 1970's. I have repeatedly tried to share with you the facts of the positives agriculture is embracing as it relates to conservation which in turn relates to benefits to wildlife which in turn relates to benefits to sportsmen all the while meeting the demand of the consumer.

Maybe once try having a conversation where you leave your "beliefs" and "opinions" that you do not take the time to find out if true aside.

 

[deleted]

I don't know who wiped out the plains grizzly. Bottom line is they could not coexist with modern agriculture.

I would say it was more modern civilization not agriculture that wiped out or greatly reduced the numbers of the animals you talk about. Look what still happens to many animals that wander into towns.

 

[PrairieGhost]

I would say it was more modern civilization not agriculture that wiped out or greatly reduced the numbers of the animals you talk about. Look what still happens to many animals that wander into towns.

Hmmmmm yes that is true, but agriculture is part of modern civilization. Don't get me wrong I share in the problem because I eat. There are many things involved. I don't think we would tolerate the plains grizz in our back yard today. Some of those species are alive and well, but don't live in my neighborhood. Why not the antelope. To much intense agriculture. Why not the elk? To much intense agriculture. Why do we now have moose? Expanding home ranges. Why do we not have thousands? We no longer have the wetland habitat. Your comments were very good food for thought and the truth is -------------

So since the original post was about roads and our national grasslands what would happen to the wildlife species with a road on every section line? My thoughts are some species would tolerate, some species would adapt, some species would decline.