Buffer Strips---WTF

[Fish Felon]

There was an editorial in the outdoor news this past week that I thought was pretty spot on...

...where's the grassroots "rah-rah-rah'ing" by the state’s sportsmen for buffer strips?

It's perplexing that the same demographic that got 4K to the capital for a friggin' duck rally and passed dedicated funding has been absentee on this one when the governor has clearly made it his baby and even stumped for in his state of the state.

We're talking about 125,000 acres of badly needed grassland habitat that's going to dramatically have a positive effect for wildlife in the form of habitat and the state’s residents in the form of clean water for drinking and recreation.

So what gives?

I get the pessimism because the current law isn't enforced but if this was something being heralded by the populous don't you think that would get worked out in the details?

Rarely have we ever had politicians on our side as conservation proponents, let alone the governor, to this magnitude and yet nothing can be heard but crickets.


???

[get-n-birdy]

I just like to complain, I don't really care.

I'd be all for the buffer strip plan, if it increased our taxes like DF.

[Stute Slap]

I just like to complain, I don't really care.

I'd be all for the buffer strip plan, if it increased our taxes like DF.

If you want clean drinking water, call culligan.

[Fish Felon]

I care enough to write my reps. So I don't care all that much.

Still though, it boggles the mind that in a state that can get 4,000 duck hunters to march the capital there isn't 10,000 people marching the capital in support of buffer strips.

Since this is actually a concrete idea with actual legislation in motion and the duck rally was...

...I forget, WTF was the duck rally for again?

Was it an abstract notion that we want more ducks or was it for what the end result was, a reduced bag limit for two years?



For how much education is heralded in this state we sure are a bunch of morons.

[lanyard]

Well, lets' see:

Duck Rally 1: sold as "dedicated funding from existing sales tax!"

Duck Rally 2: wait, better plan, "dedicated funding from new tax and we'll add non-conservation partners!"

State full of morons: well, that or a pragmatic view that this piece of legislative turd has been set to flush since inception at the Pheasant Rally and the "plan" has been an outline.

I did think I finally heard the other day there would be some compensation to landowners?

Also, the 125,000 acres in 50' wide strips: we've just preached to for the last 20+ years that habitat needs to be in large blocks, the reason: narrow strips make predation too freakin' easy.

Give a coyote a 1 mile stretch 25' wide, turn around and walk back....sounds like a day at the pheasant farm.

And amazingly, the sell has gone straight to clean water and habitat isn't mentioned in Gov's publicity that I notice anymore.

I'm all for it. I'm also in favor of full year school, liquor stores open on Sunday, and government getting out of the marriage business. But like changing drainage ditch management practices, I'm not holding my breath.

The other change in MN: the guys who's ego's are tied to conservation are retiring, Dennis Anderson potentially has some credibility problems with the target audience, and the number or participants in these activities is dropping faster than a Twin's center fielder.



My guess is, there is an opening for King Coordinator, have at 'er.

[greatwhitehunter3!]

Also, the 125,000 acres in 50' wide strips: we've just preached to for the last 20+ years that habitat needs to be in large blocks, the reason: narrow strips make predation too freakin' easy.

Give a coyote a 1 mile stretch 25' wide, turn around and walk back....sounds like a day at the pheasant farm.

Exactly what I've been thinking. The coyotes and coons are going to have a great time with that.

[Hansen]

Don't we have a buffer strip law already in place. It's just never enforced.

[Fish Felon]

Yeah, we do.

Which is why we need new legislation in order to pass a better requirement and to address the enforcement issue.

It'd be fairly easy to come up with a unilateral way to enforce it versus the piecemeal enforcement we have now.

[Hansen]

I'm assuming the agency that is responsible for enforcing the current law would also be in theory responsible for enforcement of any "new" law. Why would anything change. It's seems pointless. How about focus on enforcement of current laws.

[lanyard]

I'm assuming the agency that is responsible for enforcing the current law would also be in theory responsible for enforcement of any "new" law. Why would anything change. It's seems pointless. How about focus on enforcement of current laws.

I think there are two bodies: 1) legislative: State of MN and DNR frame rules; 2)County SWCDs enforce rules. (or something similar)

What happens is, say in Renville Cty where beets, corn, soy, etc. rule the day the SWCD isn't quite as strict on the enforcement.

Get over to Lyon Cty where you have a University, greater diversity of income, more land owners, etc. and the enforcement goes up a bit.

The customers of government are the one's who pay the taxes, so to speak. Diverse economies might be a bit more strict as less production land drives the budget. Other areas, that's what they got, and that drives the budget. A "pro-active" enforcement person may soon find they are looking for work in certain situations, and a hero in others.