Pheasant Politics

[KDM]

I've read several posts from you about how SD is superior to ND when it comes to wildlife, but a positive attitude doesn't trump a $10 an acre increase in profits. Let's be honest. SD wouldn't give two shits about the pheasant if they didn't bring in the cash. Pheasants are nothing more than a feathered bean crop. SD Ag producers plant milo and millet to bring in the pay hunters. It's part of their cash flow plans. South Dakota's wildlife plan is nothing more than a facet of an Ag plan and is supported the same way any other Ag commodity is supported.....by subsidies. Many of these subsidies come from taxes on hunters, but they are subsidies none the less. Your deer population is a direct result of the subsidies paid to landowners to grow pheasants. ND had the same thing when CRP was at it's peak, but instead of pheasant hunters paying to hunt it was the govt. paying to not raise a crop. It was profitable in ND to keep habitat around and when it wasn't profitable anymore, the habitat went away just as fast as it appeared. South Dakota's crop of pheasants is still profitable, so the subsidies will remain or increase. Enjoy your state and the perks it provides, but stop touting SD as this wildlife minded mecca. It's NOT. Supply and Demand. If the pheasant hunters stop going to SD, I suspect your wonderful wildlife populations will go the same way as North Dakota's did after CRP.

 

[guywhofishes]

The dollars that pheasants bring into the state is a reason that habitat will be helped. I know since i moved to mobridge in 2002 the walk in areas have increased by a substantial amount around here and public hunting access has gotten better and better. Lots of grass got planted last year it was nice to see

Thumbs Up

I'm sure there will be ebbs/flows with hunting access/conditions for the average Joe - but long term it's a negative trend - habitat loss seems rapid in ND IMO - I'm glad your state is positive for now

 

[ndlongshot]

I've read several posts from you about how SD is superior to ND when it comes to wildlife, but a positive attitude doesn't trump a $10 an acre increase in profits. Let's be honest. SD wouldn't give two shits about the pheasant if they didn't bring in the cash. Pheasants are nothing more than a feathered bean crop. SD Ag producers plant milo and millet to bring in the pay hunters. It's part of their cash flow plans. South Dakota's wildlife plan is nothing more than a facet of an Ag plan and is supported the same way any other Ag commodity is supported.....by subsidies. Many of these subsidies come from taxes on hunters, but they are subsidies none the less. Your deer population is a direct result of the subsidies paid to landowners to grow pheasants. ND had the same thing when CRP was at it's peak, but instead of pheasant hunters paying to hunt it was the govt. paying to not raise a crop. It was profitable in ND to keep habitat around and when it wasn't profitable anymore, the habitat went away just as fast as it appeared. South Dakota's crop of pheasants is still profitable, so the subsidies will remain or increase. Enjoy your state and the perks it provides, but stop touting SD as this wildlife minded mecca. It's NOT. Supply and Demand. If the pheasant hunters stop going to SD, I suspect your wonderful wildlife populations will go the same way as North Dakota's did after CRP.

Man you are on a roll, KDM! Keep cruisin!

 

[Colt45]

Well I will say that I know a couple hunter dudes from SD who help out a couple of farmers or ag producers who have paid hunting on their land. They basically go release a number of birds from pens before the "hunters" show up, then guide said hunters. They tell funny stories of how terrible some of these hunters are at shooting sitting birds, let alone flying birds. They say lots of times the pheasants are reluctant to fly, dogs catch em and they have had birds sit at their feet where they could have picked them up and wrung their neck.
So I guess my point is this is probably the future of hunting, especially as habitat disappears. But you don't need much habitat to raise pheasants in a pen.
On a side note, the hunters who pay a handsome price to shoot pen raised pheasants are usually very generous folks, lots of them will stop and buy a new fancy expensive shotgun, use it for a couple hunts, then donate it some local outfit for a fund raiser.

 

[gst]

KDM there are a couple points left out. It is NOT jsut about monies when it came to CRP. I know MANY ranchers that would have loved to leave ground in CRP had they been able to manage it by rotational grazing or haying without the threat of an org like the National Wildlife Federation filing a law suit to prevent it.

So lets not give these "sportsmen" orgs a pass in their responsibility for what happened to CRP.

You mention SD is a wildlife mecca for simply one reason demand of those coming from out of state (majority) economically impacting the state. Okay fair enough. Habitat exists in SD for that reason. So who here is responsible for limiting that driving factor for a reason not to plow up sloughs and tear up CRP in ND??

If we are going to list reasons why we are losing habitat in ND lets include them all even if they might not be popular on this site.

 

[wstnodak]

oh shit here we go

 

[Kurtr]

I've read several posts from you about how SD is superior to ND when it comes to wildlife, but a positive attitude doesn't trump a $10 an acre increase in profits. Let's be honest. SD wouldn't give two shits about the pheasant if they didn't bring in the cash. Pheasants are nothing more than a feathered bean crop. SD Ag producers plant milo and millet to bring in the pay hunters. It's part of their cash flow plans. South Dakota's wildlife plan is nothing more than a facet of an Ag plan and is supported the same way any other Ag commodity is supported.....by subsidies. Many of these subsidies come from taxes on hunters, but they are subsidies none the less. Your deer population is a direct result of the subsidies paid to landowners to grow pheasants. ND had the same thing when CRP was at it's peak, but instead of pheasant hunters paying to hunt it was the govt. paying to not raise a crop. It was profitable in ND to keep habitat around and when it wasn't profitable anymore, the habitat went away just as fast as it appeared. South Dakota's crop of pheasants is still profitable, so the subsidies will remain or increase. Enjoy your state and the perks it provides, but stop touting SD as this wildlife minded mecca. It's NOT. Supply and Demand. If the pheasant hunters stop going to SD, I suspect your wonderful wildlife populations will go the same way as North Dakota's did after CRP.

I guess you can believe what you want. I think i live in a wildlife meca but thanks for telling me and the ag people i know around here what kind of minded people we are. I wouldnt have brought this up at all and have been told many times i should not be commenting on ND things so i saw something about SD and thought it was ok looks like i need to re read the bi laws and step back in line.

 

[Fly Carpin]

I've read several posts from you about how SD is superior to ND when it comes to wildlife, but a positive attitude doesn't trump a $10 an acre increase in profits. Let's be honest. SD wouldn't give two shits about the pheasant if they didn't bring in the cash. Pheasants are nothing more than a feathered bean crop. SD Ag producers plant milo and millet to bring in the pay hunters. It's part of their cash flow plans. South Dakota's wildlife plan is nothing more than a facet of an Ag plan and is supported the same way any other Ag commodity is supported.....by subsidies. Many of these subsidies come from taxes on hunters, but they are subsidies none the less. Your deer population is a direct result of the subsidies paid to landowners to grow pheasants. ND had the same thing when CRP was at it's peak, but instead of pheasant hunters paying to hunt it was the govt. paying to not raise a crop. It was profitable in ND to keep habitat around and when it wasn't profitable anymore, the habitat went away just as fast as it appeared. South Dakota's crop of pheasants is still profitable, so the subsidies will remain or increase. Enjoy your state and the perks it provides, but stop touting SD as this wildlife minded mecca. It's NOT. Supply and Demand. If the pheasant hunters stop going to SD, I suspect your wonderful wildlife populations will go the same way as North Dakota's did after CRP.

This guy really, really gets it.

 

[zoops]

From what I've read many times over SD is no different than ND when it comes to recent habitat loss; possibly worse.

 

[KDM]

KDM there are a couple points left out. It is NOT jsut about monies when it came to CRP. I know MANY ranchers that would have loved to leave ground in CRP had they been able to manage it by rotational grazing or haying without the threat of an org like the National Wildlife Federation filing a law suit to prevent it.

So lets not give these "sportsmen" orgs a pass in their responsibility for what happened to CRP.

You mention SD is a wildlife mecca for simply one reason demand of those coming from out of state (majority) economically impacting the state. Okay fair enough. Habitat exists in SD for that reason. So who here is responsible for limiting that driving factor for a reason not to plow up sloughs and tear up CRP in ND??

If we are going to list reasons why we are losing habitat in ND lets include them all even if they might not be popular on this site.

No Gabe, ranchers and other CRP participants wanted to leave their land in CRP and manage it themselves so they could have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to GET PAID from the govt for having their land in CRP and then they wanted to be able to GET PAID AGAIN on that land by grazing or haying it whenever they wanted. I'd like to get paid twice for something too. When the govt. said no, they all cried foul, stomped their feet, and pouted. I know, I was there. I got out of CRP because it wasn't a good program. Other landowners have the same options. Landowners are the ONLY driving factor for what happens on their land.....PERIOD!! Nobody makes you keep X number of cattle. You do. Nobody makes you plant trees....You do. Nobody makes you participate in the Farm Program.....You do. If you as a landowner choose to participate in the Farm Program or any other program, you have to dance by their tune. If landowners decide to do something and it bankrupts them, so be it. Let's hold the landowners responsible for what happens on their land and leave me and the rest of the country out of it.

 

[campchef]

ethanol is a major contributing factor to loss of habitat. When the dry cycle returns (which it probably has) raising dry land corn will again be a cash losing crop. Then what?

 

[Kurtr]

this is confusing

- - - Updated - - -

we want conservation groups like pheasants for ever or bcha are always trying to get politicians to help the cause. Now we have a few politicians that are doing that we as sportsman should bash them and spit in their face. We dont need your money or support. Seems thats a good way to go about things. Nice part is it does not affect you guys just the same as the policy in ND does not affect me other than the comical threads on deer hunting and the drawing taking a few months but that is fun.

 

[gst]

No Gabe, ranchers and other CRP participants wanted to leave their land in CRP and manage it themselves so they could have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to GET PAID from the govt for having their land in CRP and then they wanted to be able to GET PAID AGAIN on that land by grazing or haying it whenever they wanted. I'd like to get paid twice for something too. When the govt. said no, they all cried foul, stomped their feet, and pouted. I know, I was there. I got out of CRP because it wasn't a good program. Other landowners have the same options. Landowners are the ONLY driving factor for what happens on their land.....PERIOD!! Nobody makes you keep X number of cattle. You do. Nobody makes you plant trees....You do. Nobody makes you participate in the Farm Program.....You do. If you as a landowner choose to participate in the Farm Program or any other program, you have to dance by their tune. If landowners decide to do something and it bankrupts them, so be it. Let's hold the landowners responsible for what happens on their land and leave me and the rest of the country out of it.

Actually KDM if you are going ot talk about how to well manage lands not only for production but wildlife as well, Delta Waterfowl and yes even DU admitted that managed haying and grazing on a three year rotations IMPROVED the habitat, soil health and overall production..... a win/win for every one.

Yet The National Wildlife Federation ignored not just soil health professionals but wildlife biologists and sued to change the rules to in some instances only 1 in 10 years managed haying of grazing.

So lets have an honest discussion with the facts that it was NOT the govt that said no to managed haying and grazing, they worked in conjunction with some wildlife orgs to develop the program......it was the NWF that used litigation to stop the program both wildlife professionals and landowners , govt and sportsmen supported.

Land owners are not the ONLY influencing factor of what happens on their lands. If you truly believe that you are uninformed of the truth. Numerous Federal laws and agencies have control even if you are not in any govt programs. Endangered species designation impacts control and usage of lands.........WOTUS is something perhaps you should learn a bit more about if you think the land owner is sole controller of what is done on their properties.

I don;t necessarily disagree with most of what you said, lets just include ALL the influencing factors on why programs such as CRP disappeared and economics is NOT the sole factor.

- - - Updated - - -

KDM I can fill up 10 pages (have in the past) of examples of people being denied the right to do what they want on their lands even if they got all the permits and are not in any govt program simply because some org sued and the courts sided with them.even down ot not being able to collect rain water on your own property.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/is-rainwater-harvesting-legal-in-your-state-us/61586739

- - - Updated - - -

Here is a link that demonstartes the cooperative planning to cvreate a managed haying and grazing program that had wide spread support with CRP.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2015/5070/pdf/sir2015-5070.pdf

 

[KDM]

You're correct Gabe. These orgs got together with the govt. and CHANGED the CRP program which is why I got out. If a landowner decides to participate now, they must follow the rules of the contract. Pretty simple. It doesn't matter that haying or grazing is good for the land, it wasn't allowed by the rules of the contract the landowners signed. Let's start holding landowners accountable for the decisions they make concerning their land shall we. Nobody tells me what to do on my land, but then again, I'm NOT in any programs which would require me to follow any rules. Who tells you what to do on your land?? I bet if anyone has the ability, it's because you signed on the dotted line. As far as the WOTUS goes, I just copied this from Google and it seems that both the ACOE and the EPA are backing the truck up on that deal due to challenges. I read the text and it basically stays the WOTUS until the ACOE and EPA can prove several steps concerning a water body before they can even attempt to implement this. So Thank You for your suggestion to learn about the WOTUS, but you might want to take your own advice. Mkay.

Feb 6, 2018 - EPA and Army Move to Rescind 2015 "Waters of the U.S." Definition. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Army (the agencies) are proposing a rule to rescind the CleanWater Rule and re-codify the regulatory text that existed prior to 2015 defining "waters of the United

 

[Fritz the Cat]

[h=1]US SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH NORTH DAKOTA IN WOTUS DECISION[/h]

<< All News January 22, 2018

Media Contact: Liz Brocker (701) 328-2213​

BISMARCK, ND - Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem applauds the US Supreme Court’s unanimous decision this morning recognizing that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear legal challenges to the “Waters of the U.S.” Rule (WOTUS). “That Rule would greatly and unlawfully expand the federal government’s authority over North Dakota’s land and water resources and our state’s agricultural and natural resources and vastly limit legitimate state authority to control water pollution,” said Stenehjem.
Stenehjem leads a coalition of twelve states that obtained the first preliminary injunction against the WOTUS Rule in 2015, in a decision issued by the US District Court of the District of North Dakota that also accepted North Dakota’s argument that district courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to the WOTUS Rule. Today’s Supreme Court decision upholds North Dakota’s position on the jurisdictional issue, reversing a ruling that challenges to the WOTUS Rule must be brought in federal appeals courts.
“This is a major victory for North Dakota and our economy,” said Stenehjem. “We have argued from the beginning that the District Court here in North Dakota is the proper place for this litigation. It is significant that the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with our position so we can continue our challenge to this unacceptable federal overreach,” he continued.
The Trump Administration has announced plans to reconsider the WOTUS Rule, and Attorney General Stenehjem appreciates those efforts. However, in the wake of today’s decision paving the way for legal challenges to the WOTUS Rule to proceed in federal district courts, Stenehjem stated it “is vitally important for North Dakota to obtain a final ruling in its case declaring that the WOTUS Rule is legally invalid and permanently enjoining implementation of the Rule.” Because the dispute over which court has jurisdiction has consumed nearly two years, Attorney General Stenehjem emphasized that he will ask the federal district court to resume North Dakota’s case as quickly as possible.

.......Last night at the District 33 GOP meeting, Ag Commissioner Doug Goerhing mentioned this business. We in ND have a fund to challenge federal over reach allowing our Attorney General to pursue. EPA and the Corp are stalling for a warmer Obama type Administration. Time to end this.

I like hunting pheasants over an English Setter Pointer. He is so awesome it isn't even fair. Ha

gst said,

I know MANY ranchers that would have loved to leave ground in CRP had they been able to manage it by rotational grazing or haying without the threat of an org like the National Wildlife Federation filing a law suit to prevent it.​

The NWF and six State affiliates sued the Farm Service Agency for mismanagement of the CRP program. The North Dakota wildlife federation press release said they had no hand in that trying to convince the people that they ain't no kept girl. Ya right.







​

 

[gst]

You're correct Gabe. These orgs got together with the govt. and CHANGED the CRP program which is why I got out. If a landowner decides to participate now, they must follow the rules of the contract. Pretty simple. It doesn't matter that haying or grazing is good for the land, it wasn't allowed by the rules of the contract the landowners signed. Let's start holding landowners accountable for the decisions they make concerning their land shall we. Nobody tells me what to do on my land, but then again, I'm NOT in any programs which would require me to follow any rules. Who tells you what to do on your land?? I bet if anyone has the ability, it's because you signed on the dotted line. As far as the WOTUS goes, I just copied this from Google and it seems that both the ACOE and the EPA are backing the truck up on that deal due to challenges. I read the text and it basically stays the WOTUS until the ACOE and EPA can prove several steps concerning a water body before they can even attempt to implement this. So Thank You for your suggestion to learn about the WOTUS, but you might want to take your own advice. Mkay.

Feb 6, 2018 - EPA and Army Move to Rescind 2015 "Waters of the U.S." Definition. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Army (the agencies) are proposing a rule to rescind the CleanWater Rule and re-codify the regulatory text that existed prior to 2015 defining "waters of the United

https://www.tsln.com/news/hay-grazing-plan-in-court/
USDA argues that none of the individual plaintiffs in the case can show they are being truly affected by the haying and grazing rule. The plaintiffs also have not identified any specific lands where the National Wildlife Federation’s members have been harmed by the decision.
The 2002 farm bill gave USDA the authority to manage haying and grazing on CRP land. Because of disputes over the way USDA’s Farm Service Agency was using its authority in regards to haying and grazing, the national Wildlife Federation sued USDA in 2004 in the same Washington federal court dealing with the current case. USDA and the National Wildlife Federation settled that lawsuit in 2006 with an agreement that allowed haying in one year out of 10 on CRP land in the western U.S. and “sharply limited” USDA’s ability to use grazing as a management tool, according to the current court record. USDA agreed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act before modifying any terms of the 2006 agreement.

KDM "got together with the govt" is a bit disingenuous. The National Wildlife Federation SUED the govt over its's ability ot manage hay ing and grazing CRP which was granted to the USDA in the 2002 farm bill. The "contract" the land owner signed was under the rules the USDA had of being able to manage the haying and grazing on these lands. Managed haying and grazing on a three year rotation was part of that plan the ranchers signed up for under some contracts and they were NOT trying to "manage it themselves". The NWF SUED and the USDA settled.

KDM had Hillary won I can guarantee you the EPA would not be backing up in WOTUS. And it is not yet a done deal. The example of that had you googled a bit more information shows that had that passed even if you were not in any govt program you could have been regulated on what you did as the US controls waters of the US and lands that impact them.

If you wish to get into a tit for tat on knowledge of the WOTUS please feel free I don't have to "google" to tell you about it. Something you may wish to google is "significant nexus".

You gloss over the ESA and critical habitat designations as well as the link to the collection of rain water on private lands .....and I can continue to provide you links to examples if you wish.

But the point here is there are in FACT outside influences on why CRP is no longer with us besides JUST economics.. In Farm country it most certainly is economics on 99% of decisions not to enroll. In ranching country it is a bit different. Go ask a rancher what they know about CP 23 CRP contracts and get ready to get an earful.

So if you wish ot have a meaningful discussion of bettering habitat development here in ND you may want to acknowledge the impact orgs like the National Wildlife Federation had as they practiced their "sue and settle" agendas or you likely won;t get far with the landowners that create or destroy the habitat.

 

[Rowdie]

which will equal dollars going into habitat. Tourist hunting dollars give us more to spend on walk in areas. Seems people will bitch at any thing that is done or it is never good enough. I would like to hear the solutions the brain trust would come up with on here vs the blah wont work blah dont care blah blah we always get.

I hope they do something positive and more $$ for habitat is good. I just don't care for politicians much.

 

[gst]

. As far as the WOTUS goes, I just copied this from Google and it seems that both the ACOE and the EPA are backing the truck up on that deal due to challenges. I read the text and it basically stays the WOTUS until the ACOE and EPA can prove several steps concerning a water body before they can even attempt to implement this. So Thank You for your suggestion to learn about the WOTUS, but you might want to take your own advice. Mkay.

Feb 6, 2018 - EPA and Army Move to Rescind 2015 "Waters of the U.S." Definition. The Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Army (the agencies) are proposing a rule to rescind the CleanWater Rule and re-codify the regulatory text that existed prior to 2015 defining "waters of the United

The next word to learn a bit about KDM is "connectivity".

http://www.farmfutures.com/blogs-inside-epas-wotus-ruling-understanding-significant-nexus-9883

Last week I wrote that two words in the new rule, "significant nexus," are critical to understanding EPA's actions. In its Preamble, EPA devotes 50 pages in Part three describing what it means by "significant nexus." These two words possibly create the angst represented by the quotes above. EPA states that the key to its interpretation of the CWA is the "significant nexus" standard. EPA believes that waters are "waters of the United States" if they "…either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas."
As you can see, this broad statement might have caused some of the reactions you read above.
EPA suggests "significant nexus" is not a purely scientific determination but claims its interpretation is however informed by an EPA Science Report. EPA relies on its Science Report when it declares, "…that connectivity is a foundational concept in hydrology and freshwater ecology." It claims "Connectivity for purposes of interpreting the scope of 'waters of the United States' under the CWA serves to demonstrate the nexus between upstream water bodies and the downstream traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the territorial sea."
Nothing is said about the agriculture stormwater runoff exemption.
EPA's Science Report has five major conclusions. The scientific literature, no surprise here, "…demonstrates that streams, individually or cumulatively, exert a strong influence on the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream waters." (Remember, water runs downhill!)


In Conclusion three, the Report addresses Non-floodplain Wetlands and Open Waters. This jurisdictional claim may be what really stirs up folks in agriculture because EPA says this group of wetlands includes Prairie potholes or vernal pools.
The Report claims these wetlands "…can be connected to downstream waters through surface water, shallow subsurface water, and groundwater flows and through biological and chemical connections." EPA says "Connectivity of non-floodplain wetlands occurs along a gradient, and can be described in terms of frequency, duration, magnitude, timing, and rate of change of water, material, and biotic fluxes to downstream waters.

Now the next thing to google a bit about is "vernal pools".


Vernal Pools | Wetlands Protection and Restoration | US EPA

https://www.epa.gov/wetlands/vernal-pools


Vernal pools are seasonal depressional wetlands that occur under the Mediterranean climate conditions of the West Coast and in glaciated areas of northeastern and midwestern states. They are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring, but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall.


When pressed the EPA admitted that if water sat on lands for 24 hours it would be under their control as well as buffer lands surrounding it.

If you think this is going away, if you think you have sole control over what happens on YOUR lands you need to keep googling things KDM.

 

[KDM]

The point is Gabe, they are backing up on the WOTUS, so whatever they did or said before doesn't stand up to challenges and is now moot. What they wanted to do has been stopped and Hildabeast didn't win. Let's deal with what actually is happening instead of worrying about what could have been. Let's worry about stopping their next attempt to strip private property rights shall we. CRP has been turned into a shambles program and it now SUCKS. Who cares who's to blame, IT'S GONE and NOT coming back the way it was. Get over it. You can claim wildlife orgs make decisions for landowners, but the simple fact is, they can't. They sued the govt., NOT private landowners. Each landowner STILL has the right to choose to sign up for a program or choose not to. So cut and paste until you are blue in the face and it won't make any difference. The national wildlife federation has no authority to tell any landowner what to do. They can threaten, make phone calls, send letters, and do whatever they want, but in the end, it is the individual landowner that makes the decisions about what happens on their land. Now this thread has morphed into something that has nothing to do with wildlife habitat and needs to be moved to the political section where it can die a good death. Have a good day Gabe.

 

[Colt45]