Could We Have More CRP in the near future?

I think that is very likely. From the “Climate 21” report:

For example, there will be room in the Conservation Reserve Program to immediately enroll 4 million acres of marginal cropland into contracts to restore grasslands, wetlands, and forests. A CRP commitment could be announced in the first 100 days and will garner strong support from hunting and fishing, conservation and other organizations.
 
If it happens, which I seriously doubt as it would benefit gun owning hunters, don't be surprised if the Dems amend the program with an Executive Order to make hunting illegal on enrolled CRP lands....
 
Last edited:
And who would be in charge of enforcing that? It would be a great deal if it happened. Even if hunting was forbidden on these acres, they would be huge preserves that would be populating any neighboring pockets of cover with birds shortly. Guessing they would be hunted regularly even if the guidelines would say otherwise....assuming the owner was a sportsman. Currently, Iowa will pay an extra incentive payment to CRP owners that also enroll it in IHAP for public hunting, nice if that continued. It would be nice to see something positive happen from this administration that is coming. Exciting news.
 
Last edited:
I hope that is the case that we get more CRP acres. However, the left is pimping “millions going hungry” in the US. I predict massive SNAP increases instead of CRP. Did you know every household receiving SNAP has been receiving max benefits for household size regardless of other factors since the beginning of the COVID situation? I would rather my tax dollars go to pheasants, even if I can’t hunt them.
 
The most recent ag bill had provisions for increased hunting via Federal funds supporting walk in hunting programs at the state level. Supported across both sides of the aisle.

Many rural and southern Democrats are hunters or at least support it.

In ND it is actually the city (Dem and Rep) reps and senators that have kept the "all land posted" push in check in the last session.

I see little risk in Labs comments on CRP as no hunting zones becoming reality. While I may not care for Biden much, CRP has been through quite a few Presidents (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, ....) without any restrictions on hunting.
 
BRITTMAN said:
The most recent ag bill had provisions for increased hunting via Federal funds supporting walk in hunting programs at the state level. Supported across both sides of the aisle.

Many rural and southern Democrats are hunters or at least support it.

In ND it is actually the city (Dem and Rep) reps and senators that have kept the "all land posted" push in check in the last session.

I see little risk in Labs comments on CRP as no hunting zones becoming reality. While I may not care for Biden much, CRP has been through quite a few Presidents (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, ....) without any restrictions on hunting.
Click to expand...


Another related positive factor in this is the Pitman Robertson fund.

Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The PR Fund is an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. With this years increases in firearms and ammunition sales, state wildlife agencies should be able to access this money for walk in access programs.
 
Labs said:
If it happens, which I seriously doubt as it would benefit gun owning hunters, don't be surprised if the Dems amend the program with an Executive Order to make hunting illegal on enrolled CRP lands....
Click to expand...
The last sentence in the quote from the document wouldn’t seem to support that. “Climate 21 Project Transition Memo”.
 
I can support a 50 million acre minimum for CRP. As always, stating desired goals and reaching those goals involve a little bit more than a Schoolhouse Rock jingle, but I would definitely like to see it.
 
remy3424 said:
And who would be in charge of enforcing that? It would be a great deal if it happened. Even if hunting for forbidden on these acres, they would be huge preserves that would be populating any neighboring pockets of cover with birds shortly. Guessing they would be hunted regularly even if the guidelines would say otherwise....assuming the owner was a sportsman. Currently, Iowa will pay an extra incentive payment to CRP owners that also enroll it in IHAP for public hunting, nice if that continued. It would be nice to see something positive happen from this administration that is coming. Exciting news.
Click to expand...
USFW, they have regional offices all across the states. I retired from nearly 40 years in LE a couple years ago and from working with them I can advise they would have no problem enforcing Something like that. Bear in mind these are the same guys who gleefully write up Spring Snow Goose hunters pass shooting geese going into chopped corn for hunting over bait. You know, the season with no bag limit, no magazine capacity limit, electronic calls are legal, ect...

Remember too, in ND we are perilously close to a having the trespass law amended so that all land is considered posted, whether it is or not. If that were to happen, then potentially NDGF and SO's could be involved.

Just saying...
 
Last edited:
Supporting CRP for hunters is a tough sell to representatives from big cities and the coasts. Now supporting CRP to help the Monarch butterfly is a much easier sell. I mean who couldn't love to help butterflies. All legislation has tradeoffs, to get more CRP there may have to be more food stamps. To get more butterflies there may have to be less roundup and to get less roundup there will be concessions to big AG. It's a convoluted mess that makes strange bedfellows.
 
Look at pheasants Forever website or latest publication , there will be another Crp enrollment opportunity in 2021 Not all acres submitted get approved . But their are incentives for Polinator strips / Monarch butterfly freindly practice .

This is a continuous sign up and acres are available to do so . Get the word out to your landowner friends . The rental rates for these practices are generally pay the best for the producer .
 
Those are the best rates in CRP programs but in the big picture the ethanol plant pays more. What used to be considered marginal acres good for CRP now pays out to run crops at current yields/prices. You'll never get CRP funds big enough to get back all those acres unless that demand is scaled back. No amount of tax and spend programs can make a dent in that to get back where we were decades ago if that is the end goal.
 
PeteRevvv said:
Those are the best rates in CRP programs but in the big picture the ethanol plant pays more. What used to be considered marginal acres good for CRP now pays out to run crops at current yields/prices. You'll never get CRP funds big enough to get back all those acres unless that demand is scaled back. No amount of tax and spend programs can make a dent in that to get back where we were decades ago if that is the end goal.
Click to expand...
Ah yes the subsidies for ethanol. Than there is crop insurance so that if the corn is a bust it still pays more than CRP. Than big AG businesses hire really good lobbyers . Like I said a convoluted mess.
 
John Singer said:
Another related positive factor in this is the Pitman Robertson fund.

Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

The PR Fund is an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. With this years increases in firearms and ammunition sales, state wildlife agencies should be able to access this money for walk in access programs.
Click to expand...

Here, in N.WI., it seems like all the land being purchased with this money is being made into a playground for ATV's. At least I know of a couple cases where this is true.
 
Where is all the P-R money going? Is there any public accounting for this funds? Over the last decade, just guns & ammo sales have been ridiculous, where is the spending from this?
 
Please forgive me. When I started this thread, it was not my intent to stimulate anybody's amygdala.

From my perspective, the CRP and other government supported set aside programs have not demonstrated an anti-hunting agenda. The programs that have removed some agricultural land from production including programs to benefit Monarch Butterflies, benefit prairie game birds and therefore benefit us, as hunters.

I have met land owners of CRP acres who do not want animals on their land to be hunted. That is their right as private property owners.

Most all the agricultural land available in walk-in-access programs is land that originally was set aside from production and was then leased by states for hunter access.

If somebody has an anti-hunting agenda, the best thing they can do is advocate for agricultural land to stay in production. For at this time of year, I have yet to walk a harvested bean field, disked cornfield or grazed grassland in hopes of flushing a pheasant.
 
I apologize for being a bit... vehement. I worked with & around enough federal government LE and ag agencies to know how political, two faced, & self serving they are. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, nor do I put anything past them...
 
Labs said:
I apologize for being a bit... vehement. I worked with & around enough federal government LE and ag agencies to know how political, two faced, & self serving they are. I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, nor do I put anything past them...
Click to expand...
Just goes to show how folks can have different experiences that influence their opinions. I can say I’ve never worked with any of the above groups that haven't been courteous and helpful. I can’t account for the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top