November 2008 Updates page 5

10 November

Parity
Hi John,
Nov. 1 and 2 was a busy weekend. The first 3 farms I tried to make reservations for were full so I went for spot # 4. It turned out to be a good idea. Deer were moving all weekend on account of the weather and the bird hunters. Saturday morning 7 does made their way past by 10:30 am but no bucks. The afternoon was nothing but bucks, just no big boys. Their was one coyote at dark that made a fatal mistake to stop at 20 yds. Sunday morning was more of the same. Bucks everywhere, two were checking scrapes just out of range then the does started filtering by. About 9:00 am a very big buck cruised by at 40 yds but just didn't present a shot. My guess was he had been bumped by bird hunters. I moved closer to the scrapes in the afternoon and just before dark a buck appeared on the edge of the milo field where he freshened a scraped then turned into the timber strait to the scrape I was hunting near. He freshened it and turned to head back out to the field edge, as he stopped just in front of the creek my arrow zipped through both lungs putting him down within 50 yds. As luck would have it he made it back to the field edge where I could get my deer cart to him with ease.

Once again I would like to thank everyone who works so very hard at MAHA to find and lease quality land to hunt. As I said before, the property I hunted this weekend was my fourth choice, but obviously not a bad one.

Thanks and good hunting, Nick

MAHA Not For Everyone
We never claim MAHA is perfect or the right choice for every hunter. We also know not every hunter is right for MAHA to include those we allocate a membership to. Any member that cannot follow the rules is simply dropped from rolls. Thank you to all those that have reported the misconduct of others. Keep it up.

For Those That Care To Take Action
The hunter conflict with water conservation issue has been bantered much about reference the various CRP efforts. We resurrect this passage below from over a year ago as its arguments are sustained in the recent/current/upcoming political actions, [farm] lobbing efforts and inaction from hunter groups.

Once again hunters carry the conservation load.

Iowa bird hunters will pay another $3 for their hunting licenses this fall [2007]. One dollar for buffer strip enhancement. Buffers as non-bird hunters may not know, are not originally designed for bird hunting but have their basis in soil conservation and water filtering of agricultural runoff, keeping animal waste, fertilizer, pesticide and herbicides out of our drinking water.

Two dollars will be for wetlands restoration.

One comment from a father stated it simply gets more expensive to enjoy what many consider should be low cost or free, that is hunting should be at little expenditure. The father's son that was standing next to him had an Ipod in his ear, a cell phone on his hip and was playing a hand held video game (an exaggeration for illustrative effect, he didn't have the Ipod). There seems to be enough hypocrisy to go around.

Hunters do have one point that is valid. It is the farmers that create the runoff and it seems that all citizens regardless of recreational classification eat food that comes from farming so it stands to some reason that all citizens should pay for conservation that protects our drinking water. Culligan [water systems] does not like this attitude as they have been very effective at selling under sink water purification systems at over $1,200 each. A multi billion dollar market just in the USA alone.

Why is any of this important?

This topic of political influences on tax dollar spending is once again in the ping pong world between the farm lobby that seeks to trivialize CRP as an government subsidy to support quail hunters in Kansas rather than the water conservation resource/requirement that it is.

The argument remains the farm lobby wants your government tax dollars to support private farm harvest of tax dollar paid for CRP plantings for farmer private profit at further cost of water conservation. Proof remains in yet another "study" with dubious motivation when facing that the federal courts have all ready settled this issue and there are plenty of "emergency" provisions for farmer private gain from tax dollar paid CRP regulations existent on the books:

Scientists study biomass haying effects on pheasants,
by Ryan C. Christiansen, web exclusive posted Nov. 7, 2008.
"...a study to determine when and how much perennial grass [CRP] could be harvested for the production of cellulosic ethanol - without affecting the nesting success of pheasants and breeding waterfowl..."

As posted on the web site titled: "Ethanol Producer Magazine"

Is there any doubt to the outcome of this study? Even with its overt reference to bird reproduction we are not fooled. Even this lobby group seeks to avoid recognition that CRP is for water quality, a topic that all of America would/should be interested in beyond that of the ineffective hunting lobby and hunting effects of CRP. Had this study included the effects of farm runoff control then it may have some legitimacy. The fact that it does not is sufficient cause to believe it is a sham.

A problem with CRP is the government. An Illustrative example is the article: More conservation incentive payments available, by Rick Plumlee, The Wichita Eagle, Nov. 06, 2008, that stated:

The incentives are limited to landowners participating in the Conservation Reserve Program and who are restoring wetlands in and outside flood plains, planting hardwood forests and creating duck nesting habitat. Incentive payments will be made available in three areas:
1 Payments equal to 40 percent of the cost of installing the conservation practice.
2 $100 per acre after the contract is approved.
3 The federal government will increase its rental rate equal to 20 percent of the weighted average soil rental rate.

Taking each aspect of this program is a landowner's analysis by asking yourself if you would pay the money and time to execute such a program?

The landowner, beyond the fact this group is a very narrow population, must already be enrolled in CRP meaning the land the tax payer and landowner have already paid for and the landowner spent his time on must again be modified. Essentially paying for the same land twice.

The government pays for 40% of the costs leaving the landowner 60% of remaining money costs plus 100% full time and equipment wear costs. Any organization that puts up 40% to gain a 60% payback would take that bet, put how many landowners are willing to pay 100% up front to get a return of only 40% on receipt bearing costs while knowing he just put 60% of his money into the ground with no out year payback such as grain crops would provide?

The $100 per acre payment is minimal as the requirements are wetlands outside of the flood plain. Interesting concept to create wetlands in areas that drain water. This amounts to very limited acreage.

There is some good news. If that previous CRP land was bringing in $65 per acre and the government is willing to put another 20% of the going local per acreage rental rate that could bring in our area for example where uplands bring $60 per acre rent another $12 per acre. A landowner will be tempted to buy into a program that brings $72 an acre before maintenance costs of that CRP. That is a landowner that has both the time, money and equipment or access to equipment partially paid for by the government. An active farmer would scoff at this while the recreational landowner may jump on it.

The active farmer that wants to rent his land would do so at the $60 dollar rate of net margin and no time or equipment costs to another farmer rather than work his time to make $72 (gross) with variable costs.

Feedback
An email we received brings interest to others as many think a hunting club is a "cool" job. The sender suggested we post it for as much his benefit as ours.

"From the glimpses of issues you all [MAHA staff] must handle just coming from my little group has made me a better person. i have essentially decided i will be hunting alone next year. My group has become a group of complainers. They are not satisfied with anything less than filling a tag on a big buck. They got greedy with having some success collecting trophies. When they don't it is the fault of everything else but themselves to include blaming the ladies in the office. i have seen a trophy rack each hunt, when i didn't get him it was not because of Mid-America."

Telephones
At times we have more telephone calls that come in that either Jon or John can respond to. Occasionally, Shaun will collect unreturned calls and call to inquiry of the subject then give that listing to John or Jon for responses either in person or as return messages from Shaun. During peak telephone periods this is more efficient than having either of Jon or John return all calls all the time to find only voice mail is available. So we ask for understanding that if Shaun returns your call she is doing so as a matter of efficiency. Thanks.

7 November

Kansas Pheasant
John: The Cover looks nice...lots of birds...75 to 80 degree weather makes it kind of hard on the dogs. As one of the pics suggest...Jasper Bianco's shorthair (which hunted very hard) would not leave the mud puddle once he hit his wall. Andrew

South Dakota pheasant drive hunters need not apply. A serious statement as we consider the pheasant drive an unacceptable form of hunting. The same loathing applies to the Iowa ditch hunter.

MAHA's requirement of individuals and small friendship groups working one to two dogs at a time are less likely to wound birds, have accidents and most importantly are hunting for the right reasons.

Thanks guys for the feedback. For the rest of us these hunters are seasoned locals given to observations without exaggeration. They and others have assessed this will be a good year for Kansas.

Iowa hunters continue to report hunts good enough for a stop over of 1/2 to 1-1/2 days hunt while traveling.

Next