I think the algae bloom issue will have a major effect on habitat in the future. But that's another subject all together...
What would be your plan?
- Thread starter Lundy
- Start date
I think the algae bloom issue will have a major effect on habitat in the future. But that's another subject all together...
Not picking on your post Phil.
I don't see the farmer tearing out fence rows to plant a extra row for a extra dollar. Almost every farmer around is getting extra large farm equipment in extra large fields and the old unused fence rows are in the way and just a damn pain in the ass.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
I agree 100%. I absolutely hate seeing it as much as anyone. I don't know what is wrong with these people. I figure it's only a matter of time before Lake Erie has an epic event like the one that destroyed the Grand Lake St Marys fishery. Then what?
Indian Lake is a very large and very shallow lake and has never had this issue. It's because the farmers and landowners were progressive and built in natural buffers and riparian areas. They did it because it was the right thing to do, not because the law said that they had to. I'd love to see an incentive program for farmers to plant fence rows and riparian buffers rather than mandate it.
- 39,188
- 274
I've been through there in the snow. Flat road with hardly any ditches. It would be easy to lose the road if it wasn't for truckers making tracks. Well that and signs, poles and marker to stay between. But I bet if you stopped or someone hadn't gone down it in 5 minutes or so your would be hard pressed to say "this lane is here".
You worded that exactly how I've been talking… Not that the farmers need anymore tax breaks or anything, but I'd much rather see them have a choice on the matter. Wether it be insurance or whatever, I think they need something for helping take care of the land it's resources. I think the problem with that in my area, will be that the farmers will mow it low weekly, if not written up another way. But, we should probably get back on topic with this thread, lol. Maybe another time I'll get bored and start a thread about it. I enjoy talking and thinking about that issue.
I don't disagree with this Frank. One portion of this equation is for larger equipment.
- 39,188
- 274
I don't think they should receive an incentive to do the right thing. Did you receive an incentive to properly put in a leech bed for your septic system? Do businesses receive an incentive to properly put in settlement ponds for the parking lot runoff? Do excavation companies receive incentives for installing silt fences near waterways when excavating? I live in a protected watershed area, do I receive incentives to not dump used motor oil out behind the house? No. There should be legislation that minimizes the impact of modern farming practices such as erosion, pesticide and fertilizer runoff, and wind management. There shouldn't be an incentive for the protection of our waterways, wildlife, and windbreaks.
Sure, that sounds good and all, I don't think it realistic. Farmers run Ohio, I don't see them doing anything that cost those "poor farmers" any money.
- 39,188
- 274
Oh I agree with that. They get away with murder. And just like the snow over the road issue after the farmer removed two windbreaks everyone else will be left to deal with the consequences and repercussions.
Like grand lake st marry. The people that live there are left with dealing with it. The taxpayer foots the bill. It's been proven that the problem is nitrate runoff. I think part of the solution should be making the farmers responsible also. We understand the nitrate neutralization rate for waterways. At what distance it takes a stream to clean itself.
What should be done is a water nitrate test at the mouth of the lake. Determine the flow and nitrate concentration as a baseline for water entering the lake. Then samples should be taken every 1/4 mile to determine the nitrate concentrations in that section of stream. Each farm bordering the waterway should then be noted for how many acres of potential runoff. Say farmer A has a 300 acre field and farmer B only has 100. Take this coverage data along with the stream nitrate concentrations, and divide by the distance from the lake according to neutralization distance and come up with a percentage of contribution to the problem. Then apply that percentage to the cost of the economic and natural impact making those farmers responsible for their actions. I bet within a year you have farmers scrambling to reduce nitrate usage, implement run off containment, plant winter ground cover, and anything else they can do to limit their liability and reduce nitrate runoff. . Complete the study again in 3 years and adjust percentages. This would be very very easy for the EPA and Army corps of engineers to do. That is the Only way the lake will be rid of the problem. Until the root of the problem is addressed and people held accountable it'll continue to be a problem.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
CRP was an incentive to get farmers to stop raping the land. It's the same principle. It also set a precedent; good or bad. If you now tell all the farmers to stop doing things to increase their revenue and to start doing things because it's good for the land, wildlife etc then I just don't think you'll get anywhere.
- 39,188
- 274
That's the awesome thing about legislation. It doesn't requests cooperation.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
- 39,188
- 274
Owning private land does not give you a free pass to pollute waterways and public use areas with impunity. I live in a groundwater protection area. Should the EPA laws that prohibit me from dumping used motor oil in my ditch be removed? Should we remove the legislation around septic systems and just run raw sewage in the ditches? We know what's polluting our waterways. Lake ST marry isn't special. The same runoff has also created a dead zone spanning thousands of square miles in the gulf yet nothing is being done about it. This isn't some kooky environmental what if like global warming or keystone XL. It's already happening and the cause has been firmly identified. We've only been using mass produced nitrate fertilizer for about 60 years. After WWII the nitrate factories that produced explosives converted to making fertilizer, this caused it's use to skyrocket. If we have this much environment damage in just 60 years what will it look like in another 60.
ILUVBIG8S
Junior Member
I always find it interesting that people blame the state for low deer numbers, but then turn around an claim that government is to "big".
- 39,188
- 274
The problem isn't the size of the DNR, it's the size of their corporate friends.
And the size of the enforcers... One per county isn't enough to cover the face of the DNR.
- 39,188
- 274
I think it is. The problem is they would rather go check licenses all day and write a handful of tickets than spend a day investigating poaching or hiding out to catch a trespasser. One generates revenue and the other is a whole lot of work for little to no profit.
CritterGitterToo
Junior Member
If you look at the fines that can be levied for poaching a trophy buck..............that's more coin than 100 license/tag violations. Though, I think I see your point. Driving around in the truck all day and stopping for something obvious is certainly easier. Then, there are the stories of them hunting and/or fishing while on the clock. lol
Big_Holla
Senior Member
I would imagine the game wardens are just like many law enforcement officers that have "performance goals" that are set by their higher-up's. In other words they likely have quota's to show they are actually 'doing something'. Even though you commonly hear quota's are against the law they can and do set performance goals and rate them according to fellow officers.