Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KDM" data-source="post: 207346" data-attributes="member: 314"><p>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.&nbsp; Let's be honest.&nbsp; SD wouldn't give two shits about the pheasant if they didn't bring in the cash.&nbsp; Pheasants are nothing more than a feathered bean crop.&nbsp; SD Ag producers plant milo and millet to bring in the pay hunters.&nbsp; It's part of their cash flow plans.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Many of these subsidies come from taxes on hunters, but they are subsidies none the less.&nbsp; Your deer population is a direct result of the subsidies paid to landowners to grow pheasants.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; South Dakota's crop of pheasants is still profitable, so the subsidies will remain or increase.&nbsp; Enjoy your state and the perks it provides, but stop touting SD as this wildlife minded mecca.&nbsp; It's NOT.&nbsp; Supply and Demand.&nbsp; 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="KDM, post: 207346, member: 314"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA