Ohio Sportsman - Your Ohio Hunting and Fishing Resource banner
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
Discussion starter · #22 ·
More might be on board than you would think if it is explained well by the egg heads. Buffer stips will do more than just increase hunting. It will also help with some of the water issues Erie, St. Mary's, and Buckeye Lake are having. I had a very good conversation with some farmers in the NW part of the state and they were open to the ideas. I think something serious will be done to reduce P loading in the next 5 years and this is one likely measure.
I like the angle of approach you have. Sounds more like habitat would be the icing on the cake. Something does need to be done about that algae bloom, and I didn't tie the two together. I like it, I like it A LOT!

I just typed about 200 words and erased it all to keep from hi-jacking. You should make this it's own thread….:thumbs_up:
 
More might be on board than you would think if it is explained well by the egg heads. Buffer stips will do more than just increase hunting. It will also help with some of the water issues Erie, St. Mary's, and Buckeye Lake are having. I had a very good conversation with some farmers in the NW part of the state and they were open to the ideas. I think something serious will be done to reduce P loading in the next 5 years and this is one likely measure.
Yes...get away from thinking like, expressing desires and pushing for changes based upon a hunting viewpoint from a hunter's stump.
The appeal of doing the right thing needs to be from a perspective both wide and deep....and hopefully, involves fiscal and future components feeding influence for the general public and the kicked at farmers.

I would disagree with the "eggheads" approach....that can turn off folks just like a hunter.
The many benefits resulting from diverse and managed habitats needs to be promoted by the average-shaped heads that interact with the public....hunting and not...at every opportunity.

As to MN....I doubt many MN farmers feel differently toward supporting their families as those in Ohio.
MN tho, for pheasants, is a very, very different place than Ohio....be tough to make much of a comparison twixt the two.

Ohio can improve all aspects of their released pheasant program......but, habitat on the release areas may not be the best first focus.
In some ways, habitat is far too easy an answer and often makes people feel they have done something as soon as it is mentioned.
While some comments can shut ears....habitat chimed as IT can shut minds to thinking farther.
 
I like the angle of approach you have. Sounds more like habitat would be the icing on the cake. Something does need to be done about that algae bloom, and I didn't tie the two together. I like it, I like it A LOT!

I just typed about 200 words and erased it all to keep from hi-jacking. You should make this it's own thread….:thumbs_up:
Will do. Finally something I am actually qualified to speak about!
 
I like this buffer strip program idea .

having grown up hunting in good fence row habitat that was full of quail, pheasants, rabbits, even if it was 10ft. along field edges, it would make a difference but it would take years of restocking the quail and pheasants to bring them back to that habitat, the rabbits not so long on there own.

It should be wider , 50 ft. along watercourses which i'd say would go along way towards filtering out farm chemicals.

i've pretty much already seen what doing these things will do on a couple places i trap and hunt on. they started leaving those whole areas and buffer zones along those areas go because of usually being to wet to get planted or harvested plus plant/crop loss if they got it planted from flooding. easier , most cost effective to just let it go or leave a buffer zone out to where it was dry ground.

those places , i see and hear pheasants regular , nothing like pre 1977 but far more than in most other places. one place , there are a few quail . on all of them , I see more rabbits than most other places I go.

I'D be in favor of a upland game habitat stamp or something like that , but it would have to cost more than a few bucks to make a difference. There should be some way to get some P/R fund act money , which there millions out there not getting used to do something like this.
Pay a private landowner X amount of dollars to leave that buffer zone forever.

As far as watersheds , it should be a law that you can't clear cut a stream bank . Surprized the EPA has allowed it this long just because of Erosion alone.
 
Paying for this stamp? Would it make a difference? Seeing the dow always says they are spending more than bringing in? And now they are cutting the amount of deer tags being bought down? How would that help. Im all for it just saying.
SM-B311V/1.0 UP.Browser/6.2.3.8 (GUI) MMP/2.0
 
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top