Could We Have More CRP in the near future?

Every subsidy from the Federal government is available on-line. Info by state, by county and by participant (farm llc, or actual name) is all there along with the amount they were paid.

South Dakota had $404 million in government ag pay-outs. Of that $389 was in commodity subsidies, $13.2 million in disaster relief, and finally $1.5 million in CRP payments. Brown county lead SD in pay-outs with over $18 million of which only $144,000 were in conservation payments. The top recipient in Brown county was a partnership that took in over $1 million in commodity subsidies this year (they had no conservation payments in 2020).

I believe this does not include F&W service easement payments.

Iowa had over $936 million in total subsidies with one county (Sioux) alone taking in $45 million in subsidies.
 
Interestingly in 2020 ... MN had $2.6 million in conservation payments in 2020 ... more that ND and SD combined! :unsure:
 
Labs said:
Didn't say anything about hunters. The Left's current agenda and opinion about hunters & we who live in rural America speaks for itself...
Click to expand...
I total agree when you are talking about progressive East and West coast Democrats and those elitist and self entitled Democrats. I am not so sure the same is true when you talk about southern, midwestern and plains states Democrats.

Example: what is the carbon footprint of an entitled East Coast socialist owning 3 or 4 homes, private jet, and chauffeured vehicles ? They often cypher money from their campaigns into private wealth businesses.

I may have pushed a blue lever may three times in my entire life (I vote for someone vs. not vote for anyone), but here in MN I live among many Democrats that are outdoorsman.

The lock-out anti-hunter movement in ND is mostly lead by rural Republican state representatives and senators that are using property rights as their march orders and mantra ..... It is actually the city legislative members (both parties) that listen to their constituents and voted against it in 2019. The 2020 census will only put more power in the 10 (or so) cities of ND, but that won't help until the 2023 or so when the state is redistricted.
 
Last edited:
Brittman, I hear what you are saying but it's time midwestern and plains states democrats recognize their party has left them. Those east and west progressives own the democratic party. It's time for folks voting blue to realize they are backing the party of limiting personal freedoms and gun rights.
 
labrador said:
Brittman, I hear what you are saying but it's time midwestern and plains states democrats recognize their party has left them. Those east and west progressives own the democratic party. It's time for folks voting blue to realize they are backing the party of limiting personal freedoms and gun rights.
Click to expand...
Lab -- Why do we even have party lines or parties anyway?

If this was the year someone could raise Ross Perot from the dead and he ran the campaign he did back in the day against our 2 choices (dog crap or cat crap) Ross Perot would have won in a landslide. We literally voted for the lesser of 2 evils if you voted for one of the 2 main parties. This time I said screw it and voted with the party I closely affiliate with Libertarian - even though for some reason they never stand a chance in hell of getting any media.
 
Us Fish and Wildlife easements are a one time payment to the land owner that sells a easement to F&W. Easements before 1977 last for 99 years, after 1977 the easement last forever.
In this wet cycle that Mn and the Dakotas have been in,not very many farmers will be willing to sell a easement to the F&W because they are very difficult to deal with if there is a problem.
 
Bet there are easements created pre-1992 that are no longer marshes and grass, but under 10 - 20 foot lakes. ND has change much in the past 30 - 40 years.

Roads (paved and gravel) have been raised time and time again in some areas. Someday the drought cycle will return to the Dakotas and there will be country gravel roads that stand 30 - 50 feet above the ground.
 
remy3424 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Remi,

i don‘t understand your point about it being a tough sell to justify any kind of spending remotely resembling that. The $6 billion is what was already spent on CRP in iowa since the program started. I was just pointing out how it would be beneficial to spend the existing dollars in a different way. I would agree to focus the program on marginal lands. Probably not a ton of tax revenue being paid on marginal crp stuff now anyway. I just wanted to point out that even purchasing good land at $10,000 per acre would still have resulted in 300,000 acres currently being managed for wildlife permanently in iowa. I do not have all the answers. But CRP has no long term benefits. None. We need to do something that leads to long term benefits.
 
Tilkut said:
Remi,

i don‘t understand your point about it being a tough sell to justify any kind of spending remotely resembling that. The $6 billion is what was already spent on CRP in iowa since the program started. I was just pointing out how it would be beneficial to spend the existing dollars in a different way. I would agree to focus the program on marginal lands. Probably not a ton of tax revenue being paid on marginal crp stuff now anyway. I just wanted to point out that even purchasing good land at $10,000 per acre would still have resulted in 300,000 acres currently being managed for wildlife permanently in iowa. I do not have all the answers. But CRP has no long term benefits. None. We need to do something that leads to long term benefits.
Click to expand...
My property tax bill does not decrease when I put land into CRP so acre per acre it’s the same taxable amount, marginal or not. The current program isn’t looked on very favorably by many farmers, a purchase program wouldn’t fly.

I keep coming back to this but the original intent of the CRP program was to keep fragile lands out of production to reduce surpluses and to save the land for future use, when it may be needed. That is a very real one term benefit. A purchase program wouldn’t allow that.

There are already organizations that purchase land for conservation purposes. Some, like the nature conservancy, do not allow any access to the land in certain situations. Not even hiking.
 
So your idea is to take close to 1 percent of the Iowa farm ground completely and permanetely out of production and off the tax rolls so the few bird hunters can have an abundance of public ground to hunt. Well, it would be good for a few thousand hunters. I hope the rest of the states don't jump on board, we have a country to feed. I guess when we get crunched for production acres they can tile the remaining waterways and creeks to try to gain some back. Urban sprawl is likely eating thousands of acres of farm ground every year already. Don't like that idea, but it is out-of-the-box, pitch it to your congressman.
I would think something like mandatory filter strips on waterways in row cropped fields might gain traction. If you haven't already enrolled or have maybe a 40' feet min (or whatever they think works) of buffers in-place, you would be required to add them, at $XXX/acre payment in order to be eligible for ANY conservation/subsidy ag government program (price subsidies, cost share, fed crop ins, etc). Guessing about 100% would be enrolling Have another small incentive payment available for allowing public hunting (like Iowa's current IHAP). Maybe 3 years ago Des Moines Water Works, tried to sue drainage districts in 3 Iowa counties claiming they were responsible for introducing large amounts of nitrates into the river system that supplied a half a million Iowa residents drinking water. These filter strips could be trapping contaminants (sediment, herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers), before they get into our waterways and water systems....big advanatages to anyone who drinks water, don't even bring up the hundreds of miles of habitat it would create. Might throw in some forges with milk weeds included to save the monarch butterflies while they are at it. There is your bird habitat, not perfect, but would seem to maybe solve more problems than it would create...the hunting would be a quite by-product.
 
I'm checking in on a "Report" of politics. I realize that the conservation reserve program is essentially politics at the end of the day. So if there is any issues, please let me know. The libertarian in me doesn't like either side, so keep it clean. Have a good holiday.
 
It's always been very surprising to me that grown adults would "report" politics on a message board. I can guess to what party their views align. It's pretty easy to skip over something that you disagree with or don't want to read. However, it seems the new American way has become to simply pitch a fit until they get their way and that is brought to you by the party of "tolerance". Regarding the two party thing... I don't like one so much over the other but it is impossible to deny one wants to take away guns and limit freedom. I will do everything I can to denigrate that one and encourage others to do the same. That party's views are antithetical to the Constitution.
 
labrador said:
It's always been very surprising to me that grown adults would "report" politics on a message board. I can guess to what party their views align. It's pretty easy to skip over something that you disagree with or don't want to read. However, it seems the new American way has become to simply pitch a fit until they get their way and that is brought to you by the party of "tolerance". Regarding the two party thing... I don't like one so much over the other but it is impossible to deny one wants to take away guns and limit freedom. I will do everything I can to denigrate that one and encourage others to do the same. That party's views are antithetical to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
That’s one interpretation of the “new American way”. I have a different one.
 
Small towns probably benefit more from Ag than CRP. The grain elevators push through more corn and beans, seed and chemicals sales are higher, the implement dealers are busier, the younger farmers (without much land) are maybe able to secure more rental property. Farmers hire seasonal workers to drive trucks, etc... during a larger harvest. The business supporting all these people are busier.

McFarmer is correct ... CRP should be used to take the poorest land out of production or land near lakes, streams, and rivers that are impacted by silt and chemicals washing into the water.

Sure permanent acquistion is nice, but many state (and Federal) wildlife departments cannot manage (budget constraints) the land they own now. Weeds such as thistle can over grow public land and then spread onto neighboring private land. Much of the original Federal and State owned land came from tax forfeitures. Now days conservation organizations purchase ajoining land to improve the network. Other land is simply so poor to farm or ranch that the owners donate it to the state.

I like the CRP - Walk In program combination and actually would like to see walk in extended more often to crop land that has a patchwork of shelter belts, sloughs, or creeks. Maybe if there is a cash benefit to keep these natural areas - there will be less likelyhood of draining (tile).

The CRP - Walk In program pulls in land that would NEVER be sold to the government. In fact years ago in ND, both the state and the county boards blocked most private land from going into the public domain. That has eased some.
 
labrador said:
It's always been very surprising to me that grown adults would "report" politics on a message board. I can guess to what party their views align. It's pretty easy to skip over something that you disagree with or don't want to read. However, it seems the new American way has become to simply pitch a fit until they get their way and that is brought to you by the party of "tolerance". Regarding the two party thing... I don't like one so much over the other but it is impossible to deny one wants to take away guns and limit freedom. I will do everything I can to denigrate that one and encourage others to do the same. That party's views are antithetical to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
McFarmer said:
That’s one interpretation of the “new American way”. I have a different one.
Click to expand...
Well here's one interpretation...

My mother was a Republican her whole life. She was dead set on that I was a Republican growing up. Now she's a Democrat. Now she's mad at me that I'm not a Democrat and that I'm a "Libertarian". Hasn't talked to me since April 2020. Honestly, I'm just making light of politics and maybe my laughable situation.

Have a beer, enjoy good company.
 
Current CRP resulted in $ 6 billion being spent in Iowa since the start of the program. Not picking on Iowa. just the state I had numbers for. With little or no long term benefits. My suggestion would result in permanent benefits, with dollars for permanent management. I'm open to all new ideas. But If one of the goals of CRP was wildlife benefits, I think we would all agree it's pretty much failed. not everywhere, or every time, but mostly pretty much failed. we need to do something different.
 
webguy said:
Well here's one interpretation...

My mother was a Republican her whole life. She was dead set on that I was a Republican growing up. Now she's a Democrat. Now she's mad at me that I'm not a Democrat and that I'm a "Libertarian". Hasn't talked to me since April 2020. Honestly, I'm just making light of politics and maybe my laughable situation.

Have a beer, enjoy good company.
Click to expand...
See that’s the thing. That is a sad situation, for all involved and I‘m sorry for you and your mother. Why have a disagreement about something that you have just about zero effect upon ? Disagree and debate whether the family room should have wood floors or carpet but something so beyond a person‘s control as national politics is just not a topic to draw lines on.

In general do we consider it an insult to disagree on the large topics ? Is it an insult to me if a person has a differing opinion ? Going through life constantly insulted by others’ contrary opinions seems such a chore. Personally I have found over the years that I’m much happier if I care not two snits what a person thinks of my opinion. I also don’t give a snit what another's opinion is. I’m talking politics here specifically, I do care about the opinions of a select few on more personal subjects. No one here is counted in that select number. Sorry.

Now, I will form an opinion of a person based on their stances, but that opinion is not important to anyone other than me, and I keep it to myself.

Tilting at windmills is not productive.

Quit drinking beer, man I do miss a good porter now and then. Seltzer water and lemonade is all I allow myself.
 
Tilkut said:
Current CRP resulted in $ 6 billion being spent in Iowa since the start of the program. Not picking on Iowa. just the state I had numbers for. With little or no long term benefits. My suggestion would result in permanent benefits, with dollars for permanent management. I'm open to all new ideas. But If one of the goals of CRP was wildlife benefits, I think we would all agree it's pretty much failed. not everywhere, or every time, but mostly pretty much failed. we need to do something different.
Click to expand...
Well depends on how you define failure. The USA had 20 plus years of crp grasslands that benefited the land and provided enhanced hunting opportunities, along with pulling some farmers and ranchers back from the brink of insolvency. Was it perfect, hell no, but when is anything perfect. So we "banked" some marginal land until we needed it, some could come out and go back into production and some is not worthwhile at this time to go back into production. Economics determine what is best, if crp pays more than growing crops more crp will happen, if not it won't. Just because something doesn't last forever doesn't mean it was a bad thing. We just spent a bunch of money on a new car that won't probably last a dozen years and I just bought a 12 pac of good IPA that won't last the week and I don't look at either of those as bad investments.
 
Tilkut said:
Current CRP resulted in $ 6 billion being spent in Iowa since the start of the program. Not picking on Iowa. just the state I had numbers for.
Click to expand...

That IA number just covers the past 25 years. CRP is actual 35 years. It is surprising how much was spend in IA on CRP. IA was definitely the early pilot for the program, I suppose because IA was ground central for farm loan defaults. Land price escalation was not sustainable back then - it is now ??

If the US decided to keep CRP funded at a competitive rate and keep crop subsidies lower .., maybe IA would not have been the biggest loser. Like McFarmer said, that land was not for sale. Even in the 80s farm crisis, there were still farmers buyer land.

To be honest. Killed a lot of pheasants in both Dakotas pre-CRP and that when I was pretty young and just starting out with bird dogs.
 
Last edited:
Webguy - my mom remains a die hard Republican. She struggled that her most helpful neighbor put Biden sign in his front yard this fall.

Hope you can figure it out with your mom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top