MN Buffer Laws

Hey everyone, Just looking for some other points of view on this. With the goal of cleaning up some of the water in MN there has been a new buffer law that the state has implemented. I believe the wording for the law says something along the lines of there needs to be a buffer strip of unworked land (natural grasses) of 50 from the edges lakes rivers and streams and a buffer of 16.5 feet along ditches. I understand how that can make some people angry, majority farmers (I don't like being told what to do on land I own). However the thing that I have noticed is that some farmers that use to let people hunt on their land are now starting to put up "NO hunting due to new buffer laws Contact your governor". That sign just doesn't sit well with me, maybe its just because its another example where hunters are getting dragged into the political realm.

Here is some more information on the law
https://mn.gov/portal/natural-resources/buffer-law/

It wont be long and these farmers will be selling hunting rights. Take away income from farming and they will look to other places for money.

I do a bit of work for a watershed district in west central MN and approximately 2-7 plan sets for BWSR projects (currently working on one now). I have been out in the field pounding lathe for the newly acquired right of way for this new buffer strip area. Most farmers are perfectly fine with it as in I have had very few conflicts with any of them. I am sure they do not like the idea as MNH20FowlHunter has pointed out, no one likes being told what to do. The few that have made there displeasure in the new law noticeable also seem to be the people that till up a ditch to add that extra acre or 2 of corn and then complain in the spring that there field is too wet. I am not sure as to why farmers would not allow hunting on there property due to this law though. As you said MNH2O hunters are being dragged into something that they had no part in creating, as most of the states general population didn't know about said law until it was passed, please correct me if I am wrong, I would be interested in hearing different opinions. I believe most farmers want there fields to drain (at least in our area) so they can get in early to plant and not deal with mud and they seem to be willing to do what it takes and make sacrifices to get the help they need doing so.

I believe other states have already implemented laws such as the one mentioned. I remember an old slogan "Farm the best, conserve the rest".

I have heard from friends in MN there is a segment or certain percentage of farmers upset with the law. My understanding of why they stopped allowing hunting is PF supported the buffer law.

AKal said:

The few that have made there displeasure in the new law noticeable also seem to be the people that till up a ditch to add that extra acre or 2 of corn and then complain in the spring that there field is too wet.

Click to expand...

Or complain when the topsoil washes away.

PF had nothing to do with the generation of the law. They were caught unaware by Dayton and surprised when it happened. Do farmers actually think PF would say it is a bad idea after the fact?

I liken this to body shops throwing paint thinner out the door. We don't let them do that any more, so why would we let farmers pollute our waterways?

Are the farmers compensated for these set asides? Like CRP or something along those lines?

Funny thing. Here in Iowa we tried to raise license and tag fees pretty much across the board. It was a steep hike to make up for lack of past increases. A large portion of the funds were aimed at paying for waterway buffer strips and the like. The bill had broad support and looked to be on it's way to passing until the Farm Bureau got wind of it. They killed it pretty quick. They do not want to see land coming out of production.

Heard on the news our Senator Earnst is pushing for an increase in CRP funding. That's how it works with farmers. Crop prices are down so now they're looking to get paid for all the fence rows and water ways they tore out or tiled when prices were high. Lord knows I love them but they have their hand out a lot of the time. Another form of corporate well fair. But at least it helps us all when done right.

If I was a land owner, which I am planning on becoming, I wouldn't like being told what to do either but it happens all the time. Just look at zoning laws. Of course it wouldn't be an issue for me because I like wildlife and clean water.

mplane72, I do believe it falls on the jurisdiction of the waterway. We as the local watershed district end up paying right of way fees and assessing fines to those who do not obey. We go out and stake it so the farmers know where the new right of way is and do not fine until the real signage is up. I do not know how other departments do it but that's what we have been implementing as our standard of conduct. It would be unnerving as a land owner to have an agency come in and say you cannot do what you want with your property but I look at it the same as an hoa where there may be stipulations in the neighbor hood of how your house must look, no secondary sheds ect. But I can definitely understand the frustrations of land owners me being one in another watershed where they clear cut the flowages edge to help high spring time flows and removed the beaver dams that made excellent duck ponds due to farmers up stream complaining about spring time flooding. It is a give and take I suppose and it is never fun being the individual that is getting the take end of things.

AKal said:

mplane72, I do believe it falls on the jurisdiction of the waterway. We as the local watershed district end up paying right of way fees and assessing fines to those who do not obey. We go out and stake it so the farmers know where the new right of way is and do not fine until the real signage is up. I do not know how other departments do it but that's what we have been implementing as our standard of conduct. It would be unnerving as a land owner to have an agency come in and say you cannot do what you want with your property but I look at it the same as an hoa where there may be stipulations in the neighbor hood of how your house must look, no secondary sheds ect. But I can definitely understand the frustrations of land owners me being one in another watershed where they clear cut the flowages edge to help high spring time flows and removed the beaver dams that made excellent duck ponds due to farmers up stream complaining about spring time flooding. It is a give and take I suppose and it is never fun being the individual that is getting the take end of things.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the info. Don't think it would ever fly here in Iowa to do it that way but it wouldn't bother me one bit.

Thanks for the info AKal. Its good to know that most farmers are good with it. I guess its like most things, the bad eggs make the most stink....

MNElkNut said:

PF had nothing to do with the generation of the law. They were caught unaware by Dayton and surprised when it happened. Do farmers actually think PF would say it is a bad idea after the fact?
?

Click to expand...

I am not sure this is PF-specific, maybe for some. More generally it is a chance to get the attention of urban voters. A, "if you don't support us, we won't support you" thing.