|
Post by feathhd on Jan 3, 2011 16:28:52 GMT -6
>:(It seems that legislature wishes to ?can our efforts as sportsmen to purchase new lands for public recreation. Mind you we have fees , stamps, permits etc that supports our efforts even though marginal at best. Please make your contact to your areas representative both Republican & Democrat and let them know that you oppose the said measure • Reduce the Department of Natural Resources land acquisition for FY 2011 by 100 percent of unencumbered appropriation. As an Iowa sportsmen no matter where your from, you have seen first hand that more needs to be done not less, especially when we are ranked near last in public recreational opportunities or state owned lands. Just as some campaigned on the idea of not having government tell us what to do with our money etc, they are telling us more or less what we can't do with our fees, permits etc that support our recreational land efforts. A spade is a spade folks and as a constituent who has a vested interest in your own recreational sporting future, YOU NEED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THE ABOVE MEASURE SHOULD BE STRIKEN. They need not tell us what we can and cant do with our conservation program revenues, especially when we support them on our own. Make your calls today, make your e mails known. This is one area in Iowa that we cannot afford to loose as sportsmen. Bill Smith
|
|
|
Post by cooner61 on Jan 3, 2011 20:53:11 GMT -6
Sorry, can't support you on this. I'm a strong advocate of privately owned land, not more government owned land. The government owns enough land and when the government owns it, THEY do what they want with it, which could include any number of things, many of them, if not most, not good. Private land ownership is the backbone of America. We don't need more government owned land.
|
|
|
Post by iayogi17 on Jan 3, 2011 21:16:28 GMT -6
Yep with a mind set like that no wounder Iowa is 48th in the Nation for public owned land
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Jan 4, 2011 0:46:09 GMT -6
Good post ia. The difference here is as you Pointed out. It's not Gov owned land it is Publicly owned land. Period
As to private ownership I would also agree to an extent. What does the landscape look like in Iowa?
What have we done to our habitat?
State & federal programs that support landowners in conservation of habitat mostly end up after the contract has expired going right back into production based on comodity prices, land value prices etc. So where does that leave Recreational sportsmens future? Where does it leave habitat? Where does it leave our Natural resources?
|
|
|
Post by grundyiatrapper on Jan 4, 2011 7:02:45 GMT -6
Well I do know 1 thing I live in Grundy county and we have no pheasant population and the cottontail population sucks due to the fact we have no habbitat almost everywhere ya look the ditches are dug out and what use to be crp is now farmland waterways are all mowed every yr makes me yrs ago we had good hunting
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Jan 4, 2011 7:27:22 GMT -6
That is another good point. A lot of us have seen Habitat disappear before our eyes, many of us have to drive a good distance to even hunt. We cannot afford a stop order on our ability to purchase opportunities when we know we have lost so much as it is. Land we could buy today is not going to be cheaper the following year. For us it's better to buy it when we can.
Again I hope for your help on these issues and hope you spread the word. We as sportsmen have to push back and prevent further loss.
Thanks
|
|
|
Post by southcentral on Jan 4, 2011 9:25:30 GMT -6
Iowa is 48th in the nation for publicly-owned land because we have no deserts, mountains or swamps. Productive farmland is held in the hands of the citizens, not the state. There are places where productive land is held by the government - mostly east of the Berlin Wall.
|
|
|
Post by cooner61 on Jan 4, 2011 20:03:32 GMT -6
Good post ia. The difference here is as you Pointed out. It's not Gov owned land it is Publicly owned land. Period As to private ownership I would also agree to an extent. What does the landscape look like in Iowa? What have we done to our habitat? State & federal programs that support landowners in conservation of habitat mostly end up after the contract has expired going right back into production based on comodity prices, land value prices etc. So where does that leave Recreational sportsmens future? Where does it leave habitat? Where does it leave our Natural resources? It is government owned land, period. Who do you think the DNR is? A private entity? Once the government owns it, it is theirs to do with as they please. Take a look at what is happening out west. If you think that is good for hunters, trappers etc., give me some of what you are smoking. Deer populations have exploded in Iowa as well as turkey and others, and it has nothing to do with state controlled and owned land. The pheasant population has had more to do with harsh winters and wet springs than lack of habitat. Sure, let the state buy more land and when you see the no hunting, trapping, atv's etc. allowed game reserve signs, pat yourselves on the back. When the government buys it, they regulate it, and you can get your exercise jumping through their hoops. Have at it!
|
|
|
Post by Austin K on Jan 4, 2011 22:08:33 GMT -6
Well I do know 1 thing I live in Grundy county and we have no pheasant population and the cottontail population sucks due to the fact we have no habbitat almost everywhere ya look the ditches are dug out and what use to be crp is now farmland waterways are all mowed every yr makes me yrs ago we had good hunting i strongly agree !!
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Jan 4, 2011 23:59:55 GMT -6
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources / Fish & Wildlife work for you and the land that is bought, is bought by you. The fish & wildlife portion of the IDNR is NOT the federal goverment brother nor is it the department of Interior.
2 very different worlds for sure.
|
|
|
Post by LLLTrapper on Jan 5, 2011 6:20:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by catting on Jan 5, 2011 6:52:57 GMT -6
cooner61, I am sorry that you feel that way. The reason we do not have any quail, pheasants, rabbits is because the farmers are tilling up previously untilled land for $6 corn. You can't tell me back in the earlier decades that we didn't have cold winters, wet springs and high snowfall. Habitat Habitat Habitat that is where its at. How many of you guys have lost excellent creeks and brushy fence rows, etc to farmers that have bulldozed them in or cut down all the trees along a fence line or straightened a creek? I have and it is very upsetting. What can I do? Its their land and they have every right to do it, the farmers are just trying to be good businessmen and maximize their profits, and I still ask permission to hunt and trap even though it is not the hot spot it once was. The days of the farmers being stewards of their land are just about over, don't get me wrong their are some guys out there that are doing a good job at taking care of their land but there are far more that are not. Not to mention that the new director of the dnr has a law firm that works for the farm bureau! I am sorry if I have offended anyone here but I can't bite my tongue anymore. Thanks for opp. to talk about these issue ITT!
|
|
|
Post by cooner61 on Jan 5, 2011 11:04:27 GMT -6
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources / Fish & Wildlife work for you and the land that is bought, is bought by you. The fish & wildlife portion of the IDNR is NOT the federal goverment brother nor is it the department of Interior. 2 very different worlds for sure. What part of "public" owned and "Gov't" owned do you not understand? The gov't works for you! Your kidding right? Yes, my taxes pay for it. My taxes pay for public Gov't schools, public gov't housing, public gov't roads, and on and on. Do they work for me? They are supposed to. Public owned, gov't owned, one and the same thing. As for farmers exercising their RIGHT to use their land as they see fit, well this is still America, barely. The vast majority of farmers are good stewards of their land without government making them do it. What makes you think more gov't owned land will give you greater and better hunting, trapping, etc opportunities? Public ROW trapping? Heavily regulated and will get even more so to the point where it will eventually be banned. You can count on it. The difference between a liberal and a conservative is the conservative has faith in the individual person. A liberal trusts gov't. If you love your gov't controlled lands, talk to some of the farmers and hunters out west where the gov't owns vast areasof land "for your benefit". You should really bone up on the Constitution and what it says about the importance of maintaining private ownership of land and property.
|
|
|
Post by cooner61 on Jan 5, 2011 11:19:37 GMT -6
cooner61, I am sorry that you feel that way. The reason we do not have any quail, pheasants, rabbits is because the farmers are tilling up previously untilled land for $6 corn. You can't tell me back in the earlier decades that we didn't have cold winters, wet springs and high snowfall. Habitat Habitat Habitat that is where its at. How many of you guys have lost excellent creeks and brushy fence rows, etc to farmers that have bulldozed them in or cut down all the trees along a fence line or straightened a creek? I have and it is very upsetting. What can I do? Its their land and they have every right to do it, the farmers are just trying to be good businessmen and maximize their profits, and I still ask permission to hunt and trap even though it is not the hot spot it once was. The days of the farmers being stewards of their land are just about over, don't get me wrong their are some guys out there that are doing a good job at taking care of their land but there are far more that are not. Not to mention that the new director of the dnr has a law firm that works for the farm bureau! I am sorry if I have offended anyone here but I can't bite my tongue anymore. Thanks for opp. to talk about these issue ITT! Don't feel sorry for me! I'm well versed in the importance of private ownership. $6 corn.....well maybe if we quit using it for fuel instead of food, it wouldn't be $6. But then you would be complaining about fossil fuel production.There is better habitat now than their was 20 years ago. It's undeniable. You pick a few species that are in a natural decline and try to make a case for more land acquisition by government. Doesn't cut it. Why are certain species flourishing to the point of nuisance in the exact same habitat? Coon, deer, predators, hawks, eagles, etc. way up. If lack of habitat is causing declines, deer populations should be going down as well as others. Wildlife have an amazing ability to adapt. Especially native species.
|
|
|
Post by catting on Jan 5, 2011 12:41:16 GMT -6
wow, are you from Iowa? do you currently live in iowa? Have you not driven down the road in iowa lately? I surely wouldnt complain about fossil fuel production,,,well maybe now that gas is $3. anyway your a fool is you believe there is more habitat now then there was 20 yrs ago unless you consider cornfields habitat, they are 4 months outta the year. Yes the aniamals that thrive from human disturbance/development (beaver,coon predators etc) are doing real well and will continure to do so and will give more opp. to trap them. More public land gives me and future generations a chance to hunt and trap. Without competing with people who lease land.
|
|
|
Post by iayogi17 on Jan 5, 2011 19:26:24 GMT -6
cooner61 you must think that the guys working for the DNR don't hunt or kill
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Jan 6, 2011 23:24:32 GMT -6
cooner I can somewhat answer your question.
Good sound conservation management number 1 by sportsmen who have over time invested dollars onto the landscape in restoring , protecting and enhancing habitat.
Other major contributing factors in some population explosions are. 1. Many urban developments prevent that act of sound conservation management, thus an imbalance happens and you see more deer, skunks and of the like where sound wildlife management hunting isn't allowed as a tool for control.
|
|
|
Post by eweturn on Jan 7, 2011 14:22:32 GMT -6
for the record, i am not in favor of gov't ownership of land - regardless of how you spin it. we need smaller govt not larger, and for me govt ownership of land does not support that stance.
i really have a problem with people quoting "food vs fuel" like it is a choice....it is not. the argument has easily been debunked- the price of ag commodities has a very small correlation (r2) to the price of finished foods. high priced ($150/bbl crude) has everything to do with food price escalation....as a simple illustration i ask that when corn returned from the $8 peak to around the $3 level for a long duration did the increases in consumer prices and the smaller portions/quantities per bag or can return to previous levels? the myth has been sold to the general public by big oil, the grocers/retail assoc, the snack food assoc, tyson foods, and anybody else who benefits from grains and oilseeds production that is subsidized to levels that were below the true cost of production. there is currently, roughly, over 34 million acres of once tilled ground enrolled in the conservation reserve program. i believe this ground is greatly responsible for much of our thriving and in some instances out of control wildlife populations. however, that ground too, once supported thriving rural communities by generating commerce- communities that had implement dealers, tire stores, real main street business' etc.dollars turned over in those communites...the day the govt' paid to idle this production rural economies began to die and now people drive to the "city" to shop. i cannot be swayed that hunting and recreation dollars generated by this crp / wildlife increase were a good trade for those towns and communities. there is too much productive ground with a low EBI that was allowed enrollment into the CRP program.
balance between agriculture and nature is always acheived...it is just a matter of time.
|
|
|
Post by catting on Jan 7, 2011 15:03:59 GMT -6
wow, crp did not kill smaller communities,,,,I would put more blame on walmart than crp. Your right on the food prices, just like they are less deer in Iowa are the insurance companies going to lower their premiums? not likely! I agree big govt is bad but I do not see public hunting ground as bigger govt, I see it as land that will not have a house or mall or gas station on it ever. The balance of ag/wildlife unfortunately is not looking good, tough to have wildlife on chiseled stalks. I appreciate your take on this eweturn, its an interesting one.
|
|
|
Post by southcentral on Jan 7, 2011 17:13:30 GMT -6
Eweturn, your take on the economic impact of large block CRP is accurate. The inputs spent on keeping the land in production as well as the workforce (jobs) to do it is easily quantifiable. CRP eliminates both and the rural population follows.
I am a big fan of the riparian buffer and filter strip CRP programs - good for the wildlife, water and the farmer if they are funded well enough to incentivize the participation in them. I would think a good use of the habitat stamp $ would be to incentivize buffer strips, add to the cost-share for the Native Warm Season Grass seeds, shrubs, etc.
|
|
plumber
Active Trap Talker
Posts: 65
|
Post by plumber on Jan 7, 2011 19:55:27 GMT -6
each and every one you and i pay for the public land, roads etc. to think there is a differents between idnr programs, as far gov. or not gov, it would not be iowa dnr which is what the i stands for. i spend alot of time in the field and have found there is several reasons why are gamebird pop. is down. it has to do with habitat. weather, predators, farming, and a few others . i have personally watched turkeys eat the eggs of pheasants. watched tractors till the land that holds nests. for both pheasants and turkeys. this is not and will not be the first and the last lull in the pop. they are adaptable just slower than the deer. next year i look for there to be shortage of the lose deer tags amounts. you all have very good points in this interest, so ther shouldn't be any arguements. just be thankful the freedom we do have. because many don't. also the state of does and will sell the land they purchase, happens all the time. the money thing works for us all public private alike. sorry about the length.
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Jan 9, 2011 1:04:06 GMT -6
Wow is right. It seems you have been sold that CRP does not benefit the community or doesnt provide long term economic benefits. You would be wrong as there are stats on that.
Now off to the incentive structure bit. Now I am have always been a supporter of a balanced incentive structure that put conservation programs like CRP / WRP / WEP on a level playing field with commodities but that is not how it is. In fact said incentive structures are purposely made to be non-competitive with other commodities.
However the boys in DC dont want that because how else do you think they make this long term loans with other countries who hate us? We give them free grain and they give us more money. lol To say that alternative fuel has not contributed to the rise if food prices is laughable in itself and if you had watched the news a few days ago you would see that cattle industry has suffered and so has other livestock industries because of it. Now they have to feed those animals $8 dollar corn they cant sell it as if they are feeding them 2.10 corn now can they?
I agree with your remark about smaller gov. I do but in this case on this very issue Big gov is trying to over reach in an area that is not funded by general revenues funds. ZERO
Now if the IDNR gets money from the general revenues fund then I say go ahead target that money as it is All tax payer dollars. However when it comes to my lic fees, my permit fees and stamp fees, those things are separate and they where specifically created to do a few things. Buy land for more habitat restoration and increase public recreational opportunities. Period
Why do you think the Fish & Wildlife Trust fund was created in the firts place? To avoid situations just like this. We knew that if we allowed those funds to be stuck into general reveues fund that we would be forced to cut budgets to make room for gov shortfalls. So we set our fees aside as a means that in a situation like this we would still be able to do what our fees are supose to do. Remember our sporting dollars are not general revenue dollars or tax dollars. So when they say cut the IDNR buying ability of land by 100% that means Big Gov as you call it, wants control over how you spend your sporting dollars regardless if it is not general revenue tax dollars. They will tell you what land to buy, when to buy it etc.
Back to this incentive structure bit. Fine lets just say we do increase the incentive structure of conservation programs for farmers. Lets just say we go the route of CRP as far as length of support. 25 years we spent Millions and millions to keep marginal lands out of production and into habitat and even some other lands for that matter but only at the land owners choice. Now here we are some 20 years later and it's getting converted back into production? What did we get for a 20 year tax payer investment? How about screw you.
What you don't mention is the amount of tax payer revenues that are spent every single year in cleaning up or addressing soil erosion, silt loading and non point source contamination. Try Billions. I bet you a dollar to a donut you start putting Bills in the mail box for the clean up and you get some self motivated folks to take better care of the landscape than what has gone on for the past 100 years here in Iowa. Just think at 1 time Iowa had 6 to 7 million wetland acres and now if it is luck it has 65K in it's states inventories.
This issue I posted is about Big Gov over stepping it's authority as they seek to tell you and I AND EVERY OTHER SPORTSMEN WHAT AND HOW AND WHEN WE CAN USE OUR OWN FUNDS. Another thing I wish to mention. How much do you think 4500 to 9k an acre has to do with the subject? Land prices jump 16 to 20% in a month or 2. Some folks see nothing but dollar bills popping up out of the dirt why others see $8 dollars a bushel.
You call for a balance between conservation and production. Yeah show me when that has occurred. lol Shot we have genetically modified crops these days that probably could grown on concrete and all you have to do is give it water. LOL
Anyway all I can say is this. As sportsmen if we do not stop and get this portion of the proposal stricken we will loose a lot more than we bargain for. That's for sure. If the legislature wants to strip general revenues funds from being utilize for land buying fine, that's tax payer dollars but that is as far as it goes. They don't get to tell me as a sportsmen what and when or how I can spend my sportsmen supported conservation funds. GO FISH!
|
|
|
Post by coonripper on Jan 9, 2011 6:35:17 GMT -6
Just a qwik note on my part. Our DNR use to stock fish in county parks now they say they cant afford it so the fishing in our otter creek sucks. Now they bought 300 more acres around the park. For what? People wont come there because the fishing sucks. They closed the new ground to hunting. That now 500 acre park is fishless and the 100 plus deer that live there are eating all the trees and prarie grass. Not to mention all the goose and deer crap getting in the water and raising the bacteria level. Wasted money and mis managed ground. Its sad to see. I dont claim to know the answer but i can see gov. mismanagement of the land they already have. Lets raise license fees again so they have more money to mismanage. I have many friends in the DNR and county conservation and its a sore subject with them also. Its not the guys in the trenches for the most part its the guys that control the purse strings. Im done. Have a great day
|
|
|
Post by iayogi17 on Jan 9, 2011 8:48:02 GMT -6
money for the dnr has ear marks to go along with it, like fish stocking money is different then land purchusing money. Most people do not understand that
|
|
|
Post by ~ADC~ on Jan 9, 2011 8:51:09 GMT -6
money for the dnr has ear marks to go along with it, like fish stocking money is different then land purchusing money. Most people do not understand that Schools are the same way. There is no money to pay teachers but they can put in a new football field.... It seems really stupid to me. ~ADC~
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Jan 9, 2011 15:08:15 GMT -6
Now is we are to do some revamping of the fish & wildlife department this is the type of stuff we should bring forward as ideas that should be looked into.
What should not be allowed is legislature hands to control if we as sportsmen can buy land or not with our own constitutional protected revenues. Our own funding source. That is the reason why we as sportsmen set it up that way so we wouldn't succumb to the limitations of big gov budget short falls and cuts.
However there is a self serving agenda behind this and it's known. Who doesn't want us sportsmen owning any more land? What is their reason? They want to be the only ones to own it to do with it as they have done with every square inch of habitat we use to have in this state. End of story.
Remember folks we rank 48th when it comes to public lands and land today is cheaper than land you will buy 6 weeks from now. So if we get this jammed in our shorts we will miss many opportunities to max our limited sportsmen revenues now, only to later take the same money and obtain less ground do to higher land values. The dollar isn't buying what it used to folks and if you have been paying attention to rising land prices in Iowa you would know that it doesn't look like it will drop anytime soon.
This is our own self preservation and protection of our opportunities as much as keeping political hands away from controlling our sportsmen dollars.
Hands Off and Go Fish.
The rest is up to you guys. Make those calls and send those e mails to your legislative reps as this is the first order on the legislative agenda. Time is short and the issue urgent.
Good Luck and God Bless folks. Let's get it done.
Bill SMITH FHD101@AOL.COM 712-253-0362
|
|
|
Post by coonripper on Jan 9, 2011 18:54:34 GMT -6
I do realize that money gets earmarked. If fish stocking has a certian percent ear marked each year its a percentage of tax money and license money. So where are the fish? Been years since our local lake has been stocked and they use to raise and release catfish every year that the DNR provided. Now the county buys them but only every other year because they cant afford it every year. I guess a trappers forum is the wrong place to ask. I will ask the appropriate office. Seeing the long posts on this topic its good to see people take this stuff to heart.
|
|
|
Post by feathhd on Jan 9, 2011 21:36:05 GMT -6
I agree with that 100%
I don't know about the IDNR stocking of county facilities. As a hunter CCB'S get half of our dang habitat stamp money. I dont know what the hell they spend it on because I dont see a lot of habitat being put on the ground.
I think at times there is a riff between IDNR & CCB's myself. Could be some bad blood I dont know if your CCB isnt getting any support from the IDNR.
Any effect if these nipple wits pull this off IDNR & CCB's will pay the price in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by eweturn on Jan 10, 2011 22:10:35 GMT -6
Wow is right. It seems you have been sold that CRP does not benefit the community or doesnt provide long term economic benefits. You would be wrong as there are stats on that.
I am certain we can both provide the studies necessary to provide the backing to our arguments that would make them more than annecdotal.
Now off to the incentive structure bit. Now I am have always been a supporter of a balanced incentive structure that put conservation programs like CRP / WRP / WEP on a level playing field with commodities but that is not how it is. In fact said incentive structures are purposely made to be non-competitive with other commodities.
However the boys in DC dont want that because how else do you think they make this long term loans with other countries who hate us? We give them free grain and they give us more money. lol
PL 480 is one of the grain import assistance programs you could be refferring to. It is a US gov't backed loan program, certainly not free. While popular in the 80's during the grain surplus economics, it is used far less in today's market place. Some charitable contributions are still made, but in the case of say some African nations it is not always accepted (they refused food aid due to its GMO nature, rather starve)...if you know of a specific program to reference, I would be glad to research and debate. To say that alternative fuel has not contributed to the rise if food prices is laughable in itself and if you had watched the news a few days ago you would see that cattle industry has suffered and so has other livestock industries because of it. Now they have to feed those animals $8 dollar corn they cant sell it as if they are feeding them 2.10 corn now can they?
Laughable is your term not mine. In response to your cattle economics I offer that for every one bushel of corn ground, nearly 18 lbs of a feedstuff called DDGS (dried distillers grains w/ soluables) is produced. This product essentially consolidates the nutrient value of corn by removing only the starch. 26% protein and 10% fat...3X the values of corn. A superior livestock feed that currently trades at 70% the value of corn.....trust me, I know many cattle feeders that today can hedge a profit on a pen of feeders. Maybe more people need to learn about distillers grains.
I agree with your remark about smaller gov. I do but in this case on this very issue Big gov is trying to over reach in an area that is not funded by general revenues funds. ZERO
Glad you are not a fan of big govt. but I still do not believe for one second that govt ownership of property does not add to the taxrolls.
Now if the IDNR gets money from the general revenues fund then I say go ahead target that money as it is All tax payer dollars. However when it comes to my lic fees, my permit fees and stamp fees, those things are separate and they where specifically created to do a few things. Buy land for more habitat restoration and increase public recreational opportunities. Period
No response from me on this... Why do you think the Fish & Wildlife Trust fund was created in the firts place? To avoid situations just like this. We knew that if we allowed those funds to be stuck into general reveues fund that we would be forced to cut budgets to make room for gov shortfalls. So we set our fees aside as a means that in a situation like this we would still be able to do what our fees are supose to do. Remember our sporting dollars are not general revenue dollars or tax dollars. So when they say cut the IDNR buying ability of land by 100% that means Big Gov as you call it, wants control over how you spend your sporting dollars regardless if it is not general revenue tax dollars. They will tell you what land to buy, when to buy it etc.
Voted against this....still would today. Ballot was extremely misleading....alarmingly so. Back to this incentive structure bit. Fine lets just say we do increase the incentive structure of conservation programs for farmers. Lets just say we go the route of CRP as far as length of support. 25 years we spent Millions and millions to keep marginal lands out of production and into habitat and even some other lands for that matter but only at the land owners choice. Now here we are some 20 years later and it's getting converted back into production? What did we get for a 20 year tax payer investment? How about screw you.
Property worth fluctuates. If you owned something that today could provide 2x the income it could have in 1980...would you still take the status quo..I think not. The true value of anything is always supported by its second best use alternative....maybe instead cropping CRP we graze or hay it to give the relief to your cited suffering cattle producers. You speak of tax payer "investment" and having nothing after 20 years. That is a very convoluted way of looking at it. The payment should come each and every spring in the hatch, birth, spawn, or whatever it may be. "Screw you" sounds pretty bitter to me.
What you don't mention is the amount of tax payer revenues that are spent every single year in cleaning up or addressing soil erosion, silt loading and non point source contamination. Try Billions. I bet you a dollar to a donut you start putting Bills in the mail box for the clean up and you get some self motivated folks to take better care of the landscape than what has gone on for the past 100 years here in Iowa. Just think at 1 time Iowa had 6 to 7 million wetland acres and now if it is luck it has 65K in it's states inventories.
Please provide the sources and I will gladly read. Agriculture is fascinating to me....even the bad sides.....as for wetlands...that cannot be any kind of moder #...must have been in our colonization period. This issue I posted is about Big Gov over stepping it's authority as they seek to tell you and I AND EVERY OTHER SPORTSMEN WHAT AND HOW AND WHEN WE CAN USE OUR OWN FUNDS. Another thing I wish to mention. How much do you think 4500 to 9k an acre has to do with the subject? Land prices jump 16 to 20% in a month or 2. Some folks see nothing but dollar bills popping up out of the dirt why others see $8 dollars a bushel.
16-20% a month......I wish I owned more....ISU reported a 15.9% increase from 2009 to 2010....after a drop in 2009. I am privy to a lot of info in this arena.....not just farmers buying here. Farm ground has a return on investment of over 7% since the mid 1990's....so a lot of investment money is driving value in the absence of better alternatives. For the record, I am a capitalist....I will never begrudge any of you for making money. You call for a balance between conservation and production. Yeah show me when that has occurred. lol Shot we have genetically modified crops these days that probably could grown on concrete and all you have to do is give it water. LOL
The highest % of GMO crops ever grown last year produced the smallest crop of all 3 big commodities (corn, soy, wheat) in the past 3 years....in the face of rising demand...that is why prices are rising....short supply...in 1993 we raised 9 billion bushels of corn with very little ethanol demand....today ethanol demand for corn = 4.8 billion bushels but we now raise 13+ billion bushel crops.....biofuels brought their supply with them.....it's just that ther is no longer any room for error/short crops.
Anyway all I can say is this. As sportsmen if we do not stop and get this portion of the proposal stricken we will loose a lot more than we bargain for. That's for sure. If the legislature wants to strip general revenues funds from being utilize for land buying fine, that's tax payer dollars but that is as far as it goes. They don't get to tell me as a sportsmen what and when or how I can spend my sportsmen supported conservation funds. GO FISH! I APPRECIATE YOUR PASSION MY GOOD MAN!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Eric Rector on Jan 11, 2011 15:42:32 GMT -6
Glad you are not a fan of big govt. but I still do not believe for one second that govt ownership of property does not add to the taxrolls. Eweturn...please follow the link pasted here, contains some very interesting information regarding the taxes that are PAID each year www.iowadnr.gov/realty/tax.html and these are paid out of habitat stamp dollars, not general fund monies.
|
|