CRP Needs You Now - Please Act

huntsem said:
We can start with the idea that ANY AG activity that uses a tax payer subsidy must include an action that maintains a specified percentage of acreage that supports wildlife. If an AG producer needs or wants a tax based subsidy or insurance in order to operate then they must agree to maintain a percentage of the land as wildlife resource conservation habitat.

Under the current system as taxpayers WE are ALL contributing to the industrial AG production practices that lay waste to wildlife conservation practices.

THIS is where our wildlife conservation organizations should be focusing their efforts. It's the main cause of the problem and nibbling around the edges and not addressing it directly is not a good solution.

*
Click to expand...

It might work. Not sure if you can that in the next farm bill or not. There will be significant lobbying against that.
 
I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers. :D I'm sorry if my post made farmers sound evil. I have 2 uncles who are farmers and a bunch of friends who are also farmers. I'm just coming off of my worst season in WI and am frustrated. I used to have some honey holes that are now gone. If I was raising a family and paying employees they would come before a pheasant. I can't fault them for trying to make money.
This is a tough situation and will take time to solve. We as hunters need to make sure we write our representatives and let them know the issues. Not only from a hunting standpoint but also water quality, pollinator, and general grassland wildlife that all need our help. Frankly, I'm very worried that my boys won't be able to experience the wild pheasant hunting that I have. I hope we can figure it out.
 
huntsem said:
We can start with the idea that ANY AG activity that uses a tax payer subsidy must include an action that maintains a specified percentage of acreage that supports wildlife. If an AG producer needs or wants a tax based subsidy or insurance in order to operate then they must agree to maintain a percentage of the land as wildlife resource conservation habitat.

Under the current system as taxpayers WE are ALL contributing to the industrial AG production practices that lay waste to wildlife conservation practices.

THIS is where our wildlife conservation organizations should be focusing their efforts. It's the main cause of the problem and nibbling around the edges and not addressing it directly is not a good solution.

*
Click to expand...

The federal taxpayer funds CRP, Crop Insurance and Farm Stamps and maybe even some more stuff all found in each farm bill. All on the table again for 2018. Becoming more of an issue that along withour cheap food we also need clean water and air. We need to find the balance. Fortunately conservation practices are the proven solution for the water and air quality issues. Just of matter of getting them paid for and implemented.
 
I signed.I agree with U guide and the push for more CRP. Just like the old Soil Bank days good stewardship of the land produces Wildlife. Wildlife has to have all 4 seasons worth of habitat. I live in SD and the bottom line is where you have Wetlands and CRP ground you have not only Pheasants but Deer and other wildlife. Most of SD becomes a Moonscape in the dead of Winter. The cost to the public for the CRP Program is large up to 50 dollars an acre. Some farms are capped at 50,000 dollars a year. Still well worth it But without good oversight you have what happened this year in my area in southern SD. The governor with one mighty stroke of his pen declared SD a drought stricken area early in the year., Feds went along with it and the majority of the CRP in South Dakota was hayed to the Quick! Even though the area I live in had ample moisture.Farmers were taking advantage of a double pay day and haying heavy right up to the August 31 cutoff. Result: No time for regrowth. No winter Habitat. No nesting ground in the spring.
Again poor covey numbers next year. No problem if you hunt managed ground. Im sure SD Governor Dennis Daugaard wont have trouble on his annual hunt..
 
moedogee said:
I signed.I agree with U guide and the push for more CRP. Just like the old Soil Bank days good stewardship of the land produces Wildlife. Wildlife has to have all 4 seasons worth of habitat. I live in SD and the bottom line is where you have Wetlands and CRP ground you have not only Pheasants but Deer and other wildlife. Most of SD becomes a Moonscape in the dead of Winter. The cost to the public for the CRP Program is large up to 50 dollars an acre. Some farms are capped at 50,000 dollars a year. Still well worth it But without good oversight you have what happened this year in my area in southern SD. The governor with one mighty stroke of his pen declared SD a drought stricken area early in the year., Feds went along with it and the majority of the CRP in South Dakota was hayed to the Quick! Even though the area I live in had ample moisture.Farmers were taking advantage of a double pay day and haying heavy right up to the August 31 cutoff. Result: No time for regrowth. No winter Habitat. No nesting ground in the spring.
Again poor covey numbers next year. No problem if you hunt managed ground. Im sure SD Governor Dennis Daugaard wont have trouble on his annual hunt..
Click to expand...

The ability to hay in a dry year is a main reason that I have CRP. My CRP will come out in 2019 and 2020. I do not know what the new farm bill will offer but if there is not a haying option in a dry year I will not enrole in CRP again. Only half of the CRP acres could be hayed, so there is still some cover.
 
Haymaker. I appreciate your participation in the CRP program Its farmers like you that The farm Bill needs to appeal to. Im certainly not saying the 20 percent of approved haying in normal years or the use of 50 percent in a dry year is not legit. It is an incentive and is supposed to be a Reserve program for years like we are having in many parts of SD. What I am saying is with the incentives there has to be Honesty and oversight. Rules are just that. The reason I know first hand is the thousands of acres such as around places like Kaylor SD etc. where I hunt and others where all the hay in the field was cut and Round Baled. I boned up on all the rules, took pictures and called the Gentleman who oversees a large part of the program. He thanked me and was very mannerly but kicked the can down the road and thanked me for being so observant. He said oversight of another Government program was yes a problem. Bottom line there is no winter cover, no nesting cover in the spring and another poor year for pheasants in my area 2018. What are the answers?
 
moedogee said:
Haymaker. I appreciate your participation in the CRP program Its farmers like you that The farm Bill needs to appeal to. Im certainly not saying the 20 percent of approved haying in normal years or the use of 50 percent in a dry year is not legit. It is an incentive and is supposed to be a Reserve program for years like we are having in many parts of SD. What I am saying is with the incentives there has to be Honesty and oversight. Rules are just that. The reason I know first hand is the thousands of acres such as around places like Kaylor SD etc. where I hunt and others where all the hay in the field was cut and Round Baled. I boned up on all the rules, took pictures and called the Gentleman who oversees a large part of the program. He thanked me and was very mannerly but kicked the can down the road and thanked me for being so observant. He said oversight of another Government program was yes a problem. Bottom line there is no winter cover, no nesting cover in the spring and another poor year for pheasants in my area 2018. What are the answers?
Click to expand...

An answer to your example is to go to the next FSA county commitee meeting and present your evidence. Be sure you have your facts straight, what you are charging is pretty serious. I will grant you government can mess up anything.
 
Good advice. Thats exactly what the head honcho at SD GFP said I should do! As I was talking to him on the phone next to the fields completely mowed from fence line to fence line, except where a John Deere would bury itself to the Axles. The Only part of the field not mowed was the wetlands that the program is designed to protect. Even Today It still isn't hard to see that 50 percent wasn't in the equation. Is it fraud on part of the farmers involved. Who really knows. The head honcho said that each individual contract was different yadda yadda! Right secret agreements. Isn't that the government way. Bottom line I would be a fool as a local citizen who didn't grow up here to call these cases out publicly. Word surely gets around. My wife and I have both said truthfully as we enjoy our SD retirement hunting pheasants, 3 years ago paid honest independent oversight is needed to make sure contractual agreements are not arbitrary. In all of the funded programs Walk in CRP Waterfowl areas ETC. Fish and Game is strapped they don't have the resources to do it.. I have ideas! But no time to waste bitchin and moaning.. Really neighbors who are local farmers should call out fraud. On the lighter side this morning a small covey of young ones and a little rooster were greeting the morning sun sitting on a round bale next to the cattail area that wasn't mowed . Wont be hard to find them Midday this year! Especially After the crops are harvested this is the only cover within miles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top