MN WMAs open to grazing

[B. Amish]

Duck stamps are FEDERAL...

there is a state duck stamp too. maybe you've bought one before?

yes, i've seen prairies after being grazed. graze, burn, hay, drought too. they all do different things and should be used in conjunction whenever possible.

[B. Amish]

if you go back and re-read the posts many of us are not against efforts to manage the WMA's etc, but is has to be part of a maintenance plan not an emergency effort.

yes, if you go back and re-read the posts, i said the same thing a couple times.

[CaptainMusky]

Pheasants, ducks, grouse, deer etc I don't care who hunts it or what they hunt for. At the end of the day the hunting licenses/stamps etc pay for the WMA's and they need to be utilized by hunters and not an emergency effort to feed PRIVATELY owned livestock.

Agreed 100%. I guess I dont have a problem with WPA's being managed for ducks, because that was the reason they were purchased in the first place. WMA's on the other hand should focus on deer and pheasants in that regard.

I particularly liked the email reply the person received when asking someone at the DNR if the farmer has to pay for grazing, I will paraphrase "yes, they pay OR they can choose to control weeds, etc...."

OK, so said farmer chooses to control weeds on his land in exchange for having his cattle graze on public land? Major problem with that.

If they wouldnt tile every square inch or turn their set aside back into row crops they could have "emergency grazing" there.

This whole ethanol boom has caused a major cost to each and every one of us at the hands of the government mandating it. As a business owner (the farmer) would obviously want to get every square inch of land to get the most production.

If the federal government took a long hard look at the dollars being spent toward these subsidies (ethanol) we could certainly have a farm bill that would allow for thousands of additional set aside acres to be enrolled in CRP benefitting wildlife and water quality. But no, they will just cram this ethanol dump down our throat and we will choke on it.

News flash, you can make ethanol from Native grasses. Government put the money toward THAT instead of corn based. Native grasses regenerate, corn does NOT!

[memyself@I]

Well I think we were all pretty gullible to the hype and marketing of Ethanol-remember how we were going to reduce our need for foreign oil-particularly in the mid east? At the time we were already getting most of our foreign oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela. And corn was already something we knew how to grow and get ethanol out of. The government alone didn't shove it down our throats, Ag giants, farmers and assns, farm equipment manufacturers etc etc etc actively promoted it as did car makers and we are suckers for anyone who uses the flag and patriotism to promote their agenda. How many people actually burn E85? Thats why Ethanol continues to push for a higher mandate than 15%.

Ask your local wildlife manager for maps of WMAs open to haying and grazing this season, and ask to see the management plans for all of their WMAs that they want to graze and hay. Ask if on their HSOforum if the public sites have the shape files loaded for overlays on WMAs for the grazing and hayed areas and if the management plans are on the public site as well. If nothing else, if in fact that is available at least we'll be able to see if some of our stomping grounds are being abused before we hit the road.

Dan

I think the chink in the armor is the funding sources. We have pheasant stamps, waterfowl stamps, hunting licenses, legacy money, etc etc and they may be quite specific in desired outcomes.

[memyself@I]

An opinion piece published by Mpls Strib in todays paper. Written by a S Central MN farmer. What do you-the farmer, livestock producer, and the poultry producer, think about this piece? Take a minute to read it.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/c...220426591.html

Thanks

Dan

[snapcrackpop]

I think an important distinction is the difference between crop farmers and livestock farmers.

the crop farmers are making piles of money and guaranteed a break even.

I don't think the same can be said for the livestock farmers.

[BobT]

Quote:

remember how we were going to reduce our need for foreign oil-particularly in the mid east?

The only way this can happen is if we completely eliminate all foreign sources of fuel of any type.

Suppose we suddenly chose to buy all of our oil from Canada. Canada would be forced to drop other customers in order to supply us unless they could somehow increase production. Those customers in turn will have to buy their oil from somewhere else and on down the line until they fill the void we created in the middle east. It all comes out of the same virtual bucket.

[memyself@I]

Hi Bob T

I agree that with the ever expanding demand for oil, especially in highly populated countries with powerful expanding economies, that the demand taps all markets wherever the source countries are.

All I was pointing out was the fact that during the hype promoting Ethanol it was reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which suggested subtlety or not oil from the mid east, which was not true since US was getting it from mainly Canada Mexico Caribbean nations.

That helped create blind support for ethanol.

Dan

[BobT]

Hi Bob T

I agree that with the ever expanding demand for oil, especially in highly populated countries with powerful expanding economies, that the demand taps all markets wherever the source countries are.

All I was pointing out was the fact that during the hype promoting Ethanol it was reducing our dependence on foreign oil, which suggested subtlety or not oil from the mid east, which was not true since US was getting it from mainly Canada Mexico Caribbean nations.

That helped create blind support for ethanol.

Dan

Agreed. I wasn't posting a counter argument but actually agreeing with you that it was and is hype, which is true with almost everything lately it seems. Nobody really cares to dig and find the truth. We are more interested in supporting our own agendas.