The pheasant plan is getting action

[h2ofwlr]

Scott Rall: The pheasant plan is getting action
Posted on Mar 24, 2016 at 2:36 p.m.

Daily Globe outdoors columnist
http://www.dglobe.com/sports/outdoors/3 ... ing-action

I had the very unusual opportunity to have DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr and executive director of the Board of Soil and Water Resources, John Jaschke, on the phone for a little pheasant plan update and then a few questions and answers on other related topics last Tuesday. They are distributing some information as to how the new Minnesota Pheasant Plan is coming along.
ADVERTISING

The pheasant plan was a result of the pheasant summit that was held in Marshall a few years back. The end result of that 10-part plan, in a nutshell, is to increase the amount of grasslands on the landscape and help ensure pheasant numbers are sufficient so that hunters and wildlife watchers can enjoy the traditions of hunting and outdoor recreation. The 10-point plan can be found in its entirety on the DNR’s website.

In order to meet the some of the goals of the pheasant plan, the DNR submitted a request through the governor’s office for about $12.5 million in bonding proceeds for wildlife management areas and other public lands.

These are public lands that would be largely distributed throughout the tradition pheasant range in Minnesota for the benefit of not only pheasants but all wildlife — both game and non-game.

Bonding has always been a traditional source of funds for public land WMAs. However, since the creation of the Outdoor Heritage Fund in 2008 there has not been a single dollar bonded for these such areas. It is about time they start doing it again, in my opinion. I have said it over and over again, but it bears repeating, these lands do more than provide a place to hunt. They help reduce pollution, flooding, soil erosion, and provide places for other important things like monarchs, pollinators and honey bees.

Of the $12.5 million the breakout is as follows: $9.5 million would be directed to about 2,000 acres of WMAs; $2.0 million would be directed to about 200 acres of permanent easements on native prairie.

This is a program where the landowner keeps the ownership and control of the property but agrees to leave the prairie in its natural condition.

Minnesota has lost over 98 percent of its original native prairie The last $1.0 million would go to something called the SNA program. This stands for Scientific and Natural Areas.

These usually have rare plants or other features that make them highly desirable for permanent protection. This is where the bonding money would go if approved at the requested level. These dollars would cover the purchase cost, restoration, enhancement and administration costs of implementing the program.

The second big part of pheasant plan implementation that is currently being proposed involves something called Minnesota CREP.

CREP stands for Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. It is a combination of the Federal Farm Program called CRP, or Conservation Reserve Program, and the Minnesota Reinvest in Minnesota permanent easement program. CRP is a temporary set-aside program that pays farmers and ranchers to idle sensitive lands and plant them to cover. They are normally 10 year contacts.

The Reinvest in Minnesota program is a state-run permanent easement program. The farmer gets an annual rental payment for the first 10 years and then the RIM easement steps in when the 10 years is up and protects the land forever.

This is a very big undertaking. It needs about $160 million of state funds to leverage about $600 million of federal funds to protect about 100,000 acres total. These 100,000 acres would be composed of 45,000 acres of wetlands, 5,000 acres for well head protection and about 50,000 acres for riparian buffer strips.

Of the $160 million in state funds, BWSR would look to the Outdoor Heritage Fund, the Clean Water Fund and bonding to gather up this sum over a five-year period. Minnesota has had CREP programs in the past and they are responsible for a substantial amount of habitat and water quality improvements across the state.

All of the current CREP proposal is being directed to improved water quality as its primary purpose. This is badly needed in southwest Minnesota. As this plan starts to develop, it will be interesting to see who gets behind it. Gov. Mark Dayton has made 2016 the year of water in Minnesota and included $30 million for the program in his bonding request. His bonding package centers around improving the quality of both surface and sub-surface around the state. It would be hard for this writer to understand why anyone would oppose trying to improve the water for all residents in outstate. I am sure there will be some.

The implementation of the pheasant plan, which includes these two initiatives and others not covered here, is doing what it can to move the needle in our state. There has been many pheasant plans and I have read most of them.

In the past 15 years they have mostly taken up space on a shelf somewhere. The DNR commissioner and his department is now in an active mode to move the current plan forward.

There is another reason to get behind the pheasant plan even if you don’t hunt.

The hunters in this state spend a lot of money. They buy gas, stay in hotels and buy many meals and other provisions in their treks to chase ring necks. By creating more habitat and making more pheasants, the number of hunters will increase accordingly. This is good for the economies of the businesses in southwest Minnesota. My friends who come to Nobles County rarely cook at my home. We do the best we can to stimulate the local economies of all of the little towns that are in the area.

These new grassland acres will add yet another benefit. With the monarch butterfly in free fall and 40 percent of all honey bee colonies dying off every single year, we had better start paying a little more attention to this very important segment of the non-game portion of all wildlife. All of these acres, be they WMA’s or CREP acres, will be seeded to diverse grasses and forbs also called pollinator habitat.

If this project gets rolling they expect that the demand of willing land owners will exceed the supply of funds even at the $800 million dollar mark. With the number of 100-year flood events that we get every 10 years now makes this the ideal time to to start projects that are designed to protect and preserve our water, lands and wildlife to the best of our ability. I applaud the governor and the DNR for spearheading this effort. Take a minute and submit your thoughts to your legislators who are in a position to help shepherd this effort to completion.

I hear that there is an effort under way by some to roll back or otherwise weaken the new buffer law. We need to move these water protection issues forward and not go back. The longer we wait to start, the harder it will be and no one can argue that fact.

[greatwhitehunter3!]

How about we lower the limit back down to help repopulate and people can quit pissing and moaning about the pheasants.


Talked to my sister's father in law the other day and he said he talked to the DNR about a month ago about some things they were doing by the WMA by his farm. The DNR is cutting down every coniferous tree on the property. Her father in law mentioned how great of a habitat area that is for the pheasants in the fall and through winter and that they should wait to cut it down if they are going to until they have something else established.

His answer - "That's how we should do it but we aren't. Pheasants aren't native to MN anyways so that's not our priority."

What a bunch of &^%$*@ idiots. What is this entire buffer strip, save the pheasants crap about then? Governor mumbles needs to go.

[h2ofwlr]

While I agree that it is ridiculous in what the DNR does sometimes like the cutting down of trees, the Gov has no direct control though. Who needs to an ass reaming are the wildlife directors/managers that set the policies in each region. But they have these degrees, and so lay men (us hunters, outdoors people, landowners with long term experience of what is and is not working) are all too often ignored. There should be a mix of BOTH to do what is best for the lands. A long term action plan for each parcel and area is a good start, and then implement it. For example for above, plant native species of trees for wind breaks and for wildlife cover in next 2 years. 10 years from now cut down any new invasive saplings down that grew within the last 8 years. At 20 years, after the plantings have established themselves well, cut down all old and new invasive trees down. This way you have short, medium and long term cover. But as I said - one needs to go after the area wildlife managers who set and implement the policies.

This is how I look at it for the Gov - most of the Govs couldn't give a crap about hunting, conservation, etc. So at least Gov Mumbles is trying to put forward some conservation efforts. What is stopping him most times (buffer strip for example) is the Big AG interests crying to the legislators who then stop it in it tracks or allow a watered down version.