Lab Chaser
New member
Until payment rates go back up CRP acres are pretty much at a standstill. 99% are re-enrollments with very little new stuff. A lot more getting ripped up than going in.
Could We Have More CRP in the near future?
- Thread starter John Singer
- Start date
I used to support ethanol - now not so much - would like all subsidies for it to go away. Bio Diesel I can get behind - not ethanol.
Alaskan swamp collies
Well-known member
Well if there was ever a time to get more money for biodiesel it would be in the next 4 years.
I support wildlife and conservation 100%. But please don't spend another huge bucket of money on TEMPORARY programs. Purchase erodible lands and permanently retire them. keep half the money in a fund to manage the lands you purchase each year. Otherwise you will be right back where you started sometime in the future. we did CRP. we have nothing to show for it. Why repeat that mistake.
I have noticed there are a whole lot of large shiny new grain bins on the landscape out there. We appear to be overproducing and something fundamentally needs to change or will gov't keep on subsidizing overproduction. I still see cases around me of grassland being converted to crops.
Labs
Active member
Not enough space to go into our & many others experiences with the govt agencies during the Devils Lake flooding during the late 90's-early 2000's. Here's Just a taste my personal experiences. Many others, my old farming & ranching neighbors in particular, still haven't recovered...
Because of their (EPA, USDA, USFWS, FEMA) refusal to assist Ramsey County in any meaningful manner for years during the flood, our normal 28 mile round trip to town turned into 70 miles. At one point, I had to bridge our township road myself with barn beams just so we & our neighbors could get to the blacktop for the 70 mile round trip, because the above agencies refused to authorize a culvert under the flooded township road between pre-existing sloughs.
We were warned/threatened with legal consequences & federal charges if we collectively took matters into our own hands and put in a culvert ourselves. Clearly, they had resources and authority to do that. Hence the barn beams across the washed out road.
The only agency that offered any assistance was FEMA. When we finally met with them, they refused to talk to us about any help we needed. What they did offer was counseling for flood-related stress and anger, wanted to know if we had guns in the house, had marital problems because of stress, ect. We and many others walked out on them in disgust...
I sold that farmstead in 2017 & bought a new place down here. There's still no culvert under that township road and never will be because of the above agencies...
Last edited:
remy3424
Well-known member
Living in a highly productive crop ground area, there would be zero land in my area able to be purchased ($8-$10K/acre), but crp provides hunting opportunities and large bird producing fields. We have a great many birds to show from crp here. CRP contracts are 10 or 15 years in duration, so yes they are temporary. It will take some big government to start purchasing land and hiring people to create and manage the habitat...it is only money and there should be spending coming with the new administration. It might working in western SD or NE, but not in my state.
remy,
I don't know your reasoning for not being able to purchase permanent ground in your area. If it is cost, I don't see that as an issue. If my memory is correct, Iowa has gotten over $6 billion in CRP payments since the program started. even with spending half on properly managing the land, that would leave over $ 3 billion to acquire land in Iowa. Even at $ 10,000 an acre, if this had been started when CRP started, there would be 300,000 more acres dedicated to wildlife right now. that would be equal to having 6 managed wildlife areas minimum, of 500 acres each, in each county. obviously, you wouldn't have had to pay $10,000 for every acre over the last 30 years, so actual wildlife acreage would be much greater than that now. these lands would be permanently managed for wildlife and recreation. The issue is with current program, whenever money dries up, all benefits evaporate. no long term benefits. Think out of the box.
With CRP the property tax is still plaid and the land is managed by the owner. Our local entities haven’t had much luck taxing the feds for local improvements. The intention of the CRP was Conservation Reserve, saving land not needed today but having it available for future use and in better shape than it was at the time. We may need that land someday, who knows.
Many other benefits to the CRP program have become apparent and the program has evolved but government purchasing land wouldn’t go over very well in rural areas. The CRP isn’t very highly thought of with many rural residents as it is.
The government isn’t allowed to pay more than the appraised price on land, that price won’t get much farm land bought unfortunately. There are conservation groups that buy land for more than appraisal, then sell to the state at a loss. Those groups aren’t thought of very highly either. I know Iowa has trouble maintaining the land they have currently.
We have been trying to get some land into a long term easement (30 years) with the NRCS, the hurdles are high. A permanent easement is also possible but not that much more attractive than the 30 years. We have also tried trading good habitat land with the state in exchange for more farmable land elsewhere without much interest.
A well funded CRP is the most likely way forward, and yes rates have to go up. Rates the last three years are down considerably, political reasons maybe. Big corporate agribusiness doesn’t like CRP. The most recent land we have put in was accepted at 2/3 what our highest was about 5 years ago. The land isn’t apples to apples so can’t draw a direct comparison. EQIP land is still very high but the acreage is small, we have land going into that also. There is a three year term for that.
Many other benefits to the CRP program have become apparent and the program has evolved but government purchasing land wouldn’t go over very well in rural areas. The CRP isn’t very highly thought of with many rural residents as it is.
The government isn’t allowed to pay more than the appraised price on land, that price won’t get much farm land bought unfortunately. There are conservation groups that buy land for more than appraisal, then sell to the state at a loss. Those groups aren’t thought of very highly either. I know Iowa has trouble maintaining the land they have currently.
We have been trying to get some land into a long term easement (30 years) with the NRCS, the hurdles are high. A permanent easement is also possible but not that much more attractive than the 30 years. We have also tried trading good habitat land with the state in exchange for more farmable land elsewhere without much interest.
A well funded CRP is the most likely way forward, and yes rates have to go up. Rates the last three years are down considerably, political reasons maybe. Big corporate agribusiness doesn’t like CRP. The most recent land we have put in was accepted at 2/3 what our highest was about 5 years ago. The land isn’t apples to apples so can’t draw a direct comparison. EQIP land is still very high but the acreage is small, we have land going into that also. There is a three year term for that.
Golden Hour
Well-known member
I serve on our township board periodically and that is insane that the feds prevented the township from installing a culvert!! We install and replace several culverts each year. What was their reasoning for preventing the township from installing a culvert on a township road?
EDIT: I just wanted to add that townships manage township roads in SD. I see you mentioned the county and perhaps it is different in ND.
remy3424
Well-known member
I don't think we need to see Iowa owned by the government. We wouldn't enjoy the needed tax structure and then we would move to SD. Somewhere corn and beans need to be raised and hogs/cattle need to eat. I don't think the number of hunters will ever be able to justify any kind of spending remotely resembling that....it might be a tough sell. Much eaier sell is to look at HEL acres or just your marginally productive ones and find a way to use those. Like said, government doesn't want own land, to lose the tax base and have the added expenses....someone is going to have to pick-up the tab. I guess like any funded program, the tax payers are on the hook. CPR is not cheap either, point taken.
BRITTMAN
Well-known member
Agree. Economics are not favorable. Maybe end all crop subsidies or only make them available to those that also enroll their poorest land or land along waterways into CRP/CREP ??
I am pretty sure most farmers do not take subsidy payments, but at the same time others take huge payments.
Pretty sure that was part of the original idea, decrease subsidity payments and put the money to better use - conservation.
I imagine participation is close enough to 100% might as well call it that. Participation in some form at least. It would be unusual to find a farm of even small size that doesn’t participate.
Maybe other areas are different than corn/bean Iowa. I imagine vegetable producers don’t participate to the degree a corn farmer would.
The only way CRP could reduce subsidies would be if it reduced production, I don’t think it has done that to any substantial degree.
This is not helpful. Of all the hunters that I know and/or hunt with, 80% of them are Democrates. Can the "demonization" of others in this country that don't toe your particular the line stop?
Labs
Active member
The county & townships were broke from flood fighting & repair efforts. The Feds said they didn't have money, putting one in would require an environmental impact study, authorization, and sign off by all involved agencies, ect, ect. You name the excuse, we heard it...
Took years to get them to agree to agree to & help fund an outlet on the lake to stabilize the water level. By the time they agreed, the damage was done. Roads, land, homes, local economy, you name it...
Labs
Active member
Didn't say anything about hunters. The Left's current agenda and opinion about hunters & we who live in rural America speaks for itself...
Golden Hour
Well-known member
I think you’d be hard pressed to find a producer that farms that does not participate in fed programs that result in a subsidy of some form. It’s simply part of agribusiness.