The Solution

[Sir-diealot]

I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.

We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example,  My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.

We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates.  When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.

If you were to go to a city and see all the food that is thrown away at restaurants alone you would see we have more than enough food to feed the homeless in each of those cities. Now you take what we throw away at home because our eyes were bigger than out stomachs, because we did not like it or because we just decided we wanted to put something else in the pantry then you would see we have far more food than most think we do. There is more than enough food to feed the world, there is just the problems mentioned above and the way we waste so much of it. I do not buy over population either, let me take a person out in the back country of Montana, make them walk out and they can walk for several days without seeing a person. Let's not even bring up all the land in Alaska.

[Meleagris gallopavo]

I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.

We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example,  My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.

We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates.  When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.

If you were to go to a city and see all the food that is thrown away at restaurants alone you would see we have more than enough food to feed the homeless in each of those cities. Now you take what we throw away at home because our eyes were bigger than out stomachs, because we did not like it or because we just decided we wanted to put something else in the pantry then you would see we have far more food than most think we do. There is more than enough food to feed the world, there is just the problems mentioned above and the way we waste so much of it. I do not buy over population either, let me take a person out in the back country of Montana, make them walk out and they can walk for several days without seeing a person. Let's not even bring up all the land in Alaska.

I'm not saying we don't produce enough food, right now.  Food is either purchased or given away in the U.S. currently to a great degree.  Because we are good at producing food people don't pay a lot for food, relatively speaking.  Folks don't starve to death a lot in the U.S. relative to other countries.  Our homeless have access to food.  Food production is a complex topic that affects every facet of our lives.  I believe it's an oversimplification to say that because some folks don't eat everything on their plate each meal that we overproduce food to fill the pockets of a few wealthy people.  So far as Montana, if you took urban America and spread them out over the U.S. in individual dwellings, the landscape, and wildlife habitat would be very different.  Some areas on this planet support human survival better than others.  Not every region of every country can support high populations of humans without a lot of help.  If you want to see a good example of a city that takes up a lot of resources to prop up, look out the plane window when you fly over Las Vegas Nevada.  There's an artificial environment in the middle of a desert created by humans.  Do they produce any food in Las Vegas or are there a lot of farmers there growing food for the city's populace.  No.  It's mostly all brought in, much like an IV bag.  The grass is really green though...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sir-diealot]

I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.

We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example,  My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.

We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates.  When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.

If you were to go to a city and see all the food that is thrown away at restaurants alone you would see we have more than enough food to feed the homeless in each of those cities. Now you take what we throw away at home because our eyes were bigger than out stomachs, because we did not like it or because we just decided we wanted to put something else in the pantry then you would see we have far more food than most think we do. There is more than enough food to feed the world, there is just the problems mentioned above and the way we waste so much of it. I do not buy over population either, let me take a person out in the back country of Montana, make them walk out and they can walk for several days without seeing a person. Let's not even bring up all the land in Alaska.

I'm not saying we don't produce enough food, right now.  Food is either purchased or given away in the U.S. currently to a great degree.  Because we are good at producing food people don't pay a lot for food, relatively speaking.  Folks don't starve to death a lot in the U.S. relative to other countries.  Our homeless have access to food.  Food production is a complex topic that affects every facet of our lives.  I believe it's an oversimplification to say that because some folks don't eat everything on their plate each meal that we overproduce food to fill the pockets of a few wealthy people.  So far as Montana, if you took urban America and spread them out over the U.S. in individual dwellings, the landscape, and wildlife habitat would be very different.  Some areas on this planet support human survival better than others.  Not every region of every country can support high populations of humans without a lot of help.  If you want to see a good example of a city that takes up a lot of resources to prop up, look out the plane window when you fly over Las Vegas Nevada.  There's an artificial environment in the middle of a desert created by humans.  Do they produce any food in Las Vegas or are there a lot of farmers there growing food for the city's populace.  No.  It's mostly all brought in, much like an IV bag.  The grass is really green though...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not believe I said that it is to fill the pockets of wealthy people, I said it is both politics and corporate greed that prevent it from being distributed the way it could be. I have heard of cases were lets say country B has food brought into it and then the politicians or the local warlords either do not allow it to leave the landing strip or it is taken into custody and used to feed people that do not need it or it was not intended for in the first place. Then you have the nightmare of food quarantine which if you talk to many people in the industry which I have in the past will tell you that it is blown way to far as far as everything that they do before it can be released and much of the food will spoil before it can ever be handed out. That is a part of what I am trying to get at. There is more than enough food to feed the people of the world.

[deerhunt1988]

Modern farming practices do have an impact on habitat.

-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever.

-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.

-Herbicides/Pesticides. With the advancements in these chemicals, there is as little remaining life as ever in crop fields outside of the crops themselves. Less insects for food/bugging. Less plants for food/cover in between plantings.


I saw CRP mentioned. CRP acreage has fallen for 13 straight years! Yes, it is a great program for wildlife, but we keep loosing acres!!! Here is a good article on the loss of CRP ground.

https://www.trcp.org/2020/04/17/one-farm-bills-popular-conservation-programs-losing-ground/

[Meleagris gallopavo]

I honestly disagree with the statement, the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the simple fact is we waste way to much food and there really is more than enough for all. Corporate greed and also politics get in the way of getting food to many places, if not for this there would be enough many times over.

We will respectfully disagree. I don't dispute that we have surplus food and distribution/wise use could be more efficient, but my impression was the discussion was over farming techniques, not production totals. Farmers have become more efficient and most of the land was cleared decades ago. Today's conservation programs like CRP and government set aside has taken millions of acres out of production. So conservation is part of the agriculture platform. As example,  My family's home farm is now all in CRP, 240 acres of wildlife habitat and zero crop production. Grain prices and world demand for U.S. farm commodities are high and where there's money to be made people will do what it takes to make it. I stand on my statement that it is not an easy fix. Many people complain when government pays farmers not to farm, but a farmer is not going to let ground stand idle when he can be making money off it instead of just paying high taxes on it. sadly wildlife is not near the front of the economic line. Development is swallowing up land in huge chunks and wildlife does even worse in urban paved suburbs. Within an hours drive of my home I can show you a few hundred acres that was farm and wildlife habitat 10 years ago that is all paved and new homes now, not to mention industrial build up.

We all complain about the government, but if it were not for government intervention we'd have way less habitat. That's not saying that more shouldn't be done, it should. However, it's still incumbent on us as outdoor enthusiast to support conservation organizations, advocates and vote for conservation positive candidates.  When it come to protecting wildlife we all need to have a common voice and defend everything from turkeys to deer to lizards.

If you were to go to a city and see all the food that is thrown away at restaurants alone you would see we have more than enough food to feed the homeless in each of those cities. Now you take what we throw away at home because our eyes were bigger than out stomachs, because we did not like it or because we just decided we wanted to put something else in the pantry then you would see we have far more food than most think we do. There is more than enough food to feed the world, there is just the problems mentioned above and the way we waste so much of it. I do not buy over population either, let me take a person out in the back country of Montana, make them walk out and they can walk for several days without seeing a person. Let's not even bring up all the land in Alaska.

I'm not saying we don't produce enough food, right now.  Food is either purchased or given away in the U.S. currently to a great degree.  Because we are good at producing food people don't pay a lot for food, relatively speaking.  Folks don't starve to death a lot in the U.S. relative to other countries.  Our homeless have access to food.  Food production is a complex topic that affects every facet of our lives.  I believe it's an oversimplification to say that because some folks don't eat everything on their plate each meal that we overproduce food to fill the pockets of a few wealthy people.  So far as Montana, if you took urban America and spread them out over the U.S. in individual dwellings, the landscape, and wildlife habitat would be very different.  Some areas on this planet support human survival better than others.  Not every region of every country can support high populations of humans without a lot of help.  If you want to see a good example of a city that takes up a lot of resources to prop up, look out the plane window when you fly over Las Vegas Nevada.  There's an artificial environment in the middle of a desert created by humans.  Do they produce any food in Las Vegas or are there a lot of farmers there growing food for the city's populace.  No.  It's mostly all brought in, much like an IV bag.  The grass is really green though...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do not believe I said that it is to fill the pockets of wealthy people, I said it is both politics and corporate greed that prevent it from being distributed the way it could be. I have heard of cases were lets say country B has food brought into it and then the politicians or the local warlords either do not allow it to leave the landing strip or it is taken into custody and used to feed people that do not need it or it was not intended for in the first place. Then you have the nightmare of food quarantine which if you talk to many people in the industry which I have in the past will tell you that it is blown way to far as far as everything that they do before it can be released and much of the food will spoil before it can ever be handed out. That is a part of what I am trying to get at. There is more than enough food to feed the people of the world.

I agree 100%.  If we send other countries food we have no control over what happens when it gets there.  My overall comments were in regard to U.S. and to some degree world agriculture in general.  There's a finer line between feast and famine than most people are aware of. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Meleagris gallopavo]

Modern farming practices do have an impact on habitat.

-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever.

-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.

-Herbicides/Pesticides. With the advancements in these chemicals, there is as little remaining life as ever in crop fields outside of the crops themselves. Less insects for food/bugging. Less plants for food/cover in between plantings.


I saw CRP mentioned. CRP acreage has fallen for 13 straight years! Yes, it is a great program for wildlife, but we keep loosing acres!!! Here is a good article on the loss of CRP ground.

https://www.trcp.org/2020/04/17/one-farm-bills-popular-conservation-programs-losing-ground/

So, I'm going to go with ANY farming practice has an impact on wildlife, be it old or modern.

No farmer intentionally left grain or something in the field that could be sold.  So when new developments are made that increase grower profits that's a bad thing?  Everything we do in everyday life, including conversing on the forum is more efficient and easy than it was.  To think ag should have been left at a standstill is illogical.

I will repeat what I said earlier about ditchbanks and hedgerows.  Farmers have been cutting them for a very long time.  There's as many hedgerows being cut now as there were when turkeys began making a comeback.  I think the bobwhite quail suffered from the massive comeback cotton made in the late 80s.  Not a lot to eat in and around the cotton field.  I don't have data to back that up right this minute but I can try to find some if someone would like to see if I can do it. 

I flat out disagree with the pesticide statement.  First, let's correctly lump herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and all the other ag chemicals under the umbrella term of pesticides.  A herbicide is a subcategory of the broader term pesticide.  Many people think when they say pesticide they are referring to a chemical used to kill only insects. Insecticides are pesticides that are used to specifically target insects.  The pesticides growers use now are: 1) used less frequently; 2) used at lower rates/acre; 3) have lower risk of acute and chronic toxicity; 4) less toxic to beneficial insects, including native bees; and finally 5) much more expensive than they used to be.  It's a good thing growers spray fewer pesticides than they used to.  My perception of farmers is that weeds are typically not tolerated, period.  Never have been.  Fields back in the day were just as weed-free at harvest as they are now, it just took a lot more effort to get to that point, which included more herbicide applications.

The CRP was really originally designed to pay farmers to temporarily hold land out of production in hopes of controlling supplies, increasing prices and conserving soil resources during the Dust Bowl era.  Pretty much still the same today.  When farm commodity prices drop the CRP increases.  When prices increase the CRP decreases.  The added benefit of CRP is temporary land conservation.  Soil conservation practices are more mainstream in modern agriculture than they used to be.  No till means the crop residue is left in the field after harvest instead of clean fallow (bare dirt).  So I imagine there is more to eat there for the birdies if it isn't harvested.  I have seen a heck of a lot of volunteer corn come up behind modern combines. 

If you look at a peanut field after it's been harvested you may wonder how peanut growers make any money.  Peanut harvest is very inefficient for which the wildlife is glad.

All the while the number of farmers is decreasing, the average farm size is conversely increasing, while farm acreage is decreasing.  Think on that.

Farming most certainly does impact wildlife.  Not sure if the modern is worse than the less modern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GobbleNut]

Modern farming practices do have an impact on habitat.

-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever.

-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.

-Herbicides/Pesticides. With the advancements in these chemicals, there is as little remaining life as ever in crop fields outside of the crops themselves. Less insects for food/bugging. Less plants for food/cover in between plantings.


I saw CRP mentioned. CRP acreage has fallen for 13 straight years! Yes, it is a great program for wildlife, but we keep loosing acres!!! Here is a good article on the loss of CRP ground.

https://www.trcp.org/2020/04/17/one-farm-bills-popular-conservation-programs-losing-ground/

So, I'm going to go with ANY farming practice has an impact on wildlife, be it old or modern.

No farmer intentionally left grain or something in the field that could be sold.  So when new developments are made that increase grower profits that's a bad thing?  Everything we do in everyday life, including conversing on the forum is more efficient and easy than it was.  To think ag should have been left at a standstill is illogical.

I will repeat what I said earlier about ditchbanks and hedgerows.  Farmers have been cutting them for a very long time.  There's as many hedgerows being cut now as there were when turkeys began making a comeback.  I think the bobwhite quail suffered from the massive comeback cotton made in the late 80s.  Not a lot to eat in and around the cotton field.  I don't have data to back that up right this minute but I can try to find some if someone would like to see if I can do it. 

I flat out disagree with the pesticide statement.  First, let's correctly lump herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and all the other ag chemicals under the umbrella term of pesticides.  A herbicide is a subcategory of the broader term pesticide.  Many people think when they say pesticide they are referring to a chemical used to kill only insects. Insecticides are pesticides that are used to specifically target insects.  The pesticides growers use now are: 1) used less frequently; 2) used at lower rates/acre; 3) have lower risk of acute and chronic toxicity; 4) less toxic to beneficial insects, including native bees; and finally 5) much more expensive than they used to be.  It's a good thing growers spray fewer pesticides than they used to.  My perception of farmers is that weeds are typically not tolerated, period.  Never have been.  Fields back in the day were just as weed-free at harvest as they are now, it just took a lot more effort to get to that point, which included more herbicide applications.

The CRP was really originally designed to pay farmers to temporarily hold land out of production in hopes of controlling supplies, increasing prices and conserving soil resources during the Dust Bowl era.  Pretty much still the same today.  When farm commodity prices drop the CRP increases.  When prices increase the CRP decreases.  The added benefit of CRP is temporary land conservation.  Soil conservation practices are more mainstream in modern agriculture than they used to be.  No till means the crop residue is left in the field after harvest instead of clean fallow (bare dirt).  So I imagine there is more to eat there for the birdies if it isn't harvested.  I have seen a heck of a lot of volunteer corn come up behind modern combines. 

If you look at a peanut field after it's been harvested you may wonder how peanut growers make any money.  Peanut harvest is very inefficient for which the wildlife is glad.

All the while the number of farmers is decreasing, the average farm size is conversely increasing, while farm acreage is decreasing.  Think on that.

Farming most certainly does impact wildlife.  Not sure if the modern is worse than the less modern.

Not sure I see where the disagreement is in each of your comments,...and they are good ones.  Looks to me like you are both making the same points but in different verbiage...   

[Sir-diealot]

Modern farming practices do have an impact on habitat.

-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever.

-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.

-Herbicides/Pesticides. With the advancements in these chemicals, there is as little remaining life as ever in crop fields outside of the crops themselves. Less insects for food/bugging. Less plants for food/cover in between plantings.


I saw CRP mentioned. CRP acreage has fallen for 13 straight years! Yes, it is a great program for wildlife, but we keep loosing acres!!! Here is a good article on the loss of CRP ground.

https://www.trcp.org/2020/04/17/one-farm-bills-popular-conservation-programs-losing-ground/

So, I'm going to go with ANY farming practice has an impact on wildlife, be it old or modern.

No farmer intentionally left grain or something in the field that could be sold.  So when new developments are made that increase grower profits that's a bad thing?  Everything we do in everyday life, including conversing on the forum is more efficient and easy than it was.  To think ag should have been left at a standstill is illogical.

I will repeat what I said earlier about ditchbanks and hedgerows.  Farmers have been cutting them for a very long time.  There's as many hedgerows being cut now as there were when turkeys began making a comeback.  I think the bobwhite quail suffered from the massive comeback cotton made in the late 80s.  Not a lot to eat in and around the cotton field.  I don't have data to back that up right this minute but I can try to find some if someone would like to see if I can do it. 

I flat out disagree with the pesticide statement.  First, let's correctly lump herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and all the other ag chemicals under the umbrella term of pesticides.  A herbicide is a subcategory of the broader term pesticide.  Many people think when they say pesticide they are referring to a chemical used to kill only insects. Insecticides are pesticides that are used to specifically target insects.  The pesticides growers use now are: 1) used less frequently; 2) used at lower rates/acre; 3) have lower risk of acute and chronic toxicity; 4) less toxic to beneficial insects, including native bees; and finally 5) much more expensive than they used to be.  It's a good thing growers spray fewer pesticides than they used to.  My perception of farmers is that weeds are typically not tolerated, period.  Never have been.  Fields back in the day were just as weed-free at harvest as they are now, it just took a lot more effort to get to that point, which included more herbicide applications.

The CRP was really originally designed to pay farmers to temporarily hold land out of production in hopes of controlling supplies, increasing prices and conserving soil resources during the Dust Bowl era.  Pretty much still the same today.  When farm commodity prices drop the CRP increases.  When prices increase the CRP decreases.  The added benefit of CRP is temporary land conservation.  Soil conservation practices are more mainstream in modern agriculture than they used to be.  No till means the crop residue is left in the field after harvest instead of clean fallow (bare dirt).  So I imagine there is more to eat there for the birdies if it isn't harvested.  I have seen a heck of a lot of volunteer corn come up behind modern combines. 

If you look at a peanut field after it's been harvested you may wonder how peanut growers make any money.  Peanut harvest is very inefficient for which the wildlife is glad.

All the while the number of farmers is decreasing, the average farm size is conversely increasing, while farm acreage is decreasing.  Think on that.

Farming most certainly does impact wildlife.  Not sure if the modern is worse than the less modern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"-Waste grain. Farming equipment is so much more efficient these days, there is as little waste grain as ever."

I completely agree this is a detriment to wildlife, I have a friend that does farming and he admits this has hurt wildlife as well.

Also as I state how far down things are cut as well as how fast they are cut compared to the old days hurts wildlife.

-Hedge/field rows. Removal of these wooded/brushy rows to get the maximum farmable acreage possible has removed a ton of browse and cover. To this day, I still see rows being removed to be converted to crop. Many biologists believe the loss of these rows helped lead to the demise of quail.

I also completely agree with this and find it funny that the dustbowl is brought up because if I remember correctly removal of hedgerows, trees and I think it was called cross cutting are believed to have contributed to how severe the dustbowl was as there was no vegetation left to help break the wind and keep the soil in the ground. I see this further evidenced in my area where the Mennonite community as well as some of the "English" which they call us has also down and how bad the roads become during snow storms. If the hedgerows were there that blowing would not be as bad which is further backed by the fact that in the areas where they were having lots of accidents the county has started to put snow fences in the fields there are less drifts in the road and less accidents. If the cover is not there for the roads then it is clearly not there for the critters either.

[eggshell]

All good points and discussion guys. I think Gobblenut is right we are mostly agreeing and it's a syntax/semantics problem.

I have driven over a lot of this country in the last 10 years and I do see more conservation practices being used. From leaving a few rows of corn in the upper midwest to wind breaks and water holes in the SW. I also see a fair amount of fallow ground, but it is correct CRP has decreased. In the "BIG" picture things have improved for wildlife in the agriculture world, but it's still not good. I don't see it changing much in a growing world.

One area I see less or little conservation is in the central U.S. and the corn belt. Particularly in Northern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. The western states seem to be a tiny bit more wildlife conscious....but I could be wrong in my observations 

[PNWturkey]

One area I see less or little conservation is in the central U.S. and the corn belt.

I used to live and turkey hunt in Iowa.

Fencerow to fencerow corn/soybeans farming in much of the state.

Yet turkey populations/harvest has been relatively steady (harvest generally fluctuating between 10,000 and 14,000 birds) over the last couple of decades, in fact, 2020 reported turkey harvest was the highest on record!

https://www.1380kcim.com/2020/05/23/iowa-hunters-have-record-turkey-harvest-in-spring-of-2020/

[Meleagris gallopavo]

One area I see less or little conservation is in the central U.S. and the corn belt.

I used to live and turkey hunt in Iowa.

Fencerow to fencerow corn/soybeans farming in much of the state.

Yet turkey populations/harvest has been relatively steady (harvest generally fluctuating between 10,000 and 14,000 birds) over the last couple of decades, in fact, 2020 reported turkey harvest was the highest on record!

https://www.1380kcim.com/2020/05/23/iowa-hunters-have-record-turkey-harvest-in-spring-of-2020/

Which leads me to my earlier comments that modern farming practices don't have a major impact on turkey populations.  That's not to say as a whole that farming practices don't impact wildlife or specifically turkeys.  The impact can be positive or negative.  I think targeting farming practices as the reason for declining turkey populations in some areas is barking up the wrong tree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[eggshell]

[/quote]
  I think targeting farming practices as the reason for declining turkey populations in some areas is barking up the wrong tree.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/quote]

I agree.

[quavers59]

I have read all the replies and added a few of my own. 
   THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY OF US NOW...
  Not only that,I  think there is a whole  lot more Spring Turkey Hunters taking  over the Bag limit in every State then most here realize. Someone here wrote this and,I  agree--- We Have Met The Enemy- And It Is Us.

[Turkeyman]

I've followed this thread with some interest. I'm going to jump out on a limb here and state that if we had absolutely no YouTube nor social media whatsoever we'd have absolutely no problem. We'd have not even half of the current hunters which we do. New hunters would have to be self-educated as many of us have done. Weather and other environmental factors would end up averaging out.

[Meleagris gallopavo]

Maybe we should start a Facebook and YouTube campaign that makes turkey hunting seem boring, aggravating and dangerous at times.  Empty tailgates.  People asleep (we see some of these, we need more) or watching movies on their cell phones while hunting.  People playing cards or board games in blinds or in the woods.  Pictures of calls used with a description of how expensive they are and how often they don't work.  Pictures of bloody hunters with torn clothes with stories about how they were attacked by a gobbler and barely made it out.  More stories about hunters getting shot by other hunters.  Turkeys carrying diseases harmful to humans.  Pictures of spurs impaling body parts.  Diaphragm calls causing oral cancer or at least teeth problems that are expensive to correct.  True stories about turkey call addiction and how it creates financial problems.  Videos of mean, tame turkeys attacking hunters.  Turkeys vandalizing hunter's trucks when they're in the woods.  These are just a few ideas I've had.  If we make it look miserable we may have fewer hunters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk