New FarmBill

Tilkut said:
Please note I do not want to do the "same old", " same old". I agree management in the past has not been good. That is why HALF the money spent would be on management, and those in charge would be some type of local conservation agency, etc..... Please take note of the dollars listed in my example.
If you dont think $ 5,000 per acre is enough, we could make it 2/3 of the formula. That would give us 5994 acres a year, with $ 9,999 for land management. Would $ 9,999 per acre not be enough? Still a better long term result than current formula, for the majority of taxpayers, and wildlife. I dont think the majority of the benefits from dollars spent on CRP go to either the people who pay for the program ( taxpayers) or wildlife.
Click to expand...

Hard to say what the number would need to be. Here's why. Like CRP, some landowners will just not sign it up. One of the biggest issues with permanent easements is future owners or generations lose ability to do what they want with the land. That's why easement usually come in permanent or 30 contracts.

Other than a mandate buffer law like MN has for water issues, CRP can be an excellent solution given the right reforms are put in place. Every farm bill CRP gets better. I'd like to see more incentives for 15 years contracts of CRP but they went away.

Sd passed tax break on buffers so it is still a voluntary program and I do not see it being very successful for financial reasons.
 
Tilkut said:
Please note I do not want to do the "same old", " same old". I agree management in the past has not been good. That is why HALF the money spent would be on management, and those in charge would be some type of local conservation agency, etc..... Please take note of the dollars listed in my example.
If you dont think $ 5,000 per acre is enough, we could make it 2/3 of the formula. That would give us 5994 acres a year, with $ 9,999 for land management. Would $ 9,999 per acre not be enough? Still a better long term result than current formula, for the majority of taxpayers, and wildlife. I dont think the majority of the benefits from dollars spent on CRP go to either the people who pay for the program ( taxpayers) or wildlife.
Click to expand...

No you aren't factoring in current acres, payroll, equipment purchases, loss of real estate taxes, pensions, health care, workers comp, etc.

All stuff that would be on top of my 377.


IT WONT BE COST EFFECTIVE. I realize you are trying to reinvent the wheel but your proposal is not profitable near term and definitely not long term. Sorry.
 
Tilkut said:
Please note I do not want to do the "same old", " same old". I agree management in the past has not been good. That is why HALF the money spent would be on management, and those in charge would be some type of local conservation agency, etc..... Please take note of the dollars listed in my example.
If you dont think $ 5,000 per acre is enough, we could make it 2/3 of the formula. That would give us 5994 acres a year, with $ 9,999 for land management. Would $ 9,999 per acre not be enough? Still a better long term result than current formula, for the majority of taxpayers, and wildlife. I dont think the majority of the benefits from dollars spent on CRP go to either the people who pay for the program ( taxpayers) or wildlife.
Click to expand...

When you talk about the land being managed, what does management look like to you?
 
Haymaker,

First local. Maybe each county could set up a specific board. Maybe PH and QH could be involved. A balance of activities could be incorporated. But we would need to do better at controlling invasive, burning, etc...., and the best part is it's permanent and open to the public. I haven't sat down and put everything on paper, but I am certain we have wasted literally billions on the current program. I have nothing against those who currently enroll in the program. I would if I had the land to do so. But I think it's obvious it benefits the land owner most.
My first example came out to $ 5,000 per acre, purchasing 9000 acres. We could even only purchase land every other year, which would leave an additonal $10,000 per acre for management, for a total of $ 15,000. If we had done this plan for the last 20 years, we would now have 90,000 acres of additional quality upland habitat open to the public in Iowa. Land that would be permanent. And I guarantee you $ 15,000 per acre is more than enough.
 
Tilkut said:
Haymaker,

First local. Maybe each county could set up a specific board. Maybe PH and QH could be involved. A balance of activities could be incorporated. But we would need to do better at controlling invasive, burning, etc...., and the best part is it's permanent and open to the public. I haven't sat down and put everything on paper, but I am certain we have wasted literally billions on the current program. I have nothing against those who currently enroll in the program. I would if I had the land to do so. But I think it's obvious it benefits the land owner most.
My first example came out to $ 5,000 per acre, purchasing 9000 acres. We could even only purchase land every other year, which would leave an additonal $10,000 per acre for management, for a total of $ 15,000. If we had done this plan for the last 20 years, we would now have 90,000 acres of additional quality upland habitat open to the public in Iowa. Land that would be permanent. And I guarantee you $ 15,000 per acre is more than enough.
Click to expand...

If you have 100 acres, in 10 to fifteen years it is not going to be very useful. Our native grass has been taken over by Bromegrass. What would you do about tired grass? I have a 7 acre dam with another 20 acres of native grass around it that has a couple of groups of trees in it, mostly evergreens. I just set that aside for wildlife 30 years ago. It went dormant so five years ago I grazed it early for a month and did it again the next year. That helped alot and I plan to do that every third year. That I think would be the minimum that you could do for management. That involves fences and water.
 
In my area I wish they would burn more. But I would leave methods up to the experts. It would not include fencing.
 
Tilkut said:
In my area I wish they would burn more. But I would leave methods up to the experts. It would not include fencing.
Click to expand...


Our DNR is doing a fair amount of rotational grazing on their property, to good effect.

Seems the patchy, medium amount of cover is better than unburned dense stuff or laid bare burned stuff.

Granted, it's not grandfather's grazing.
 
Whether permanent or temporary the ground takes a certain amount or energy and management to produce. Clip, bale, burn, graze, interseed, spray, repeat, etc.

Takes dinero!!!$$$ and not to mention time that people don't seem to have.

The temporary programs create the time horizon and the incentives that landowners are willing to sign up for.
 
Nothing against fencing but I wish everybody would NOT use barb wire on the bottom strand.

The folks I hunt on use a smooth wire for the bottom wire and keep it a bit higher off the ground than most.

Sure has saved a lot of wire cuts on the dogs. Still keeps the cattle in.
 
Chestle said:
Nothing against fencing but I wish everybody would NOT use barb wire on the bottom strand.

The folks I hunt on use a smooth wire for the bottom wire and keep it a bit higher off the ground than most.

Sure has saved a lot of wire cuts on the dogs. Still keeps the cattle in.
Click to expand...

That is a great idea, but with 16 miles of fence I don't think I am going to change the bottom wire. I might look at in new fence that I build. I have had three dogs the last 30 years, none of them have had cuts from barbed wire. Maybe when the grow up around it they learn about it.
 
If you put it on paper I'm sorry but you put it down wrong. We just had farmland 2 miles from where I sit go for 16,200 an acre for farming not development. Not saying that's market but it's not unheard of.


I don't care if you give it to PF to control they still have to pay workers and it's not cheap

The current system works we just need to be allowed more acres to be put in.
 
Sure its working great. That's why they used to harvest up to 1.6 million roosters in iowa in the 1970's. Now they get excited if they break 200,000, with a low of 109,000 in 2011. Sure it's working. If we spend the $90 million annually in Iowa on CRP, that's $2,250,000,000 in the last 25 years, to get 10-15% of the birds they had in the 1970's. Sure it's working great.
 
haymaker said:
That is a great idea, but with 16 miles of fence I don't think I am going to change the bottom wire. I might look at in new fence that I build. I have had three dogs the last 30 years, none of them have had cuts from barbed wire. Maybe when the grow up around it they learn about it.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go change out the bottom wire on 16 miles of fence either! But doing repairs or putting in new fence I think it's a pretty good idea.

My friend's fences didn't start out that way, they just progressively kept changing it over the years when doing fencing work where the birds are. There's still some bottom wire barb but usually not in areas you want to hunt.

As for dogs and fence-smart, it is usually the young ones that get cut but I've seen it on older dogs too. A lot of times fences are grown up pretty thick in various weeds and grass and I guess the dogs don't register it as fence until they hit the wire going through. The retrieve drive is pretty strong.

I have lost count of the times my buddy has sewn up fence-cut dogs over the years. Seems like every season the locals send 2-3 hunters out to our house at sundown with a fence cut dog.
 
Tilkut said:
Sure its working great. That's why they used to harvest up to 1.6 million roosters in iowa in the 1970's. Now they get excited if they break 200,000, with a low of 109,000 in 2011. Sure it's working. If we spend the $90 million annually in Iowa on CRP, that's $2,250,000,000 in the last 25 years, to get 10-15% of the birds they had in the 1970's. Sure it's working great.
Click to expand...

Once again I think you are flawed in your thinking


Please look at the idle/crp etc acres in 1970 to now. Think that's more important than you being tunnel visioned on how bad crp is.

But by all means go buy yourself some ground... put it into natives, do all the work yourself, and let anyone who wants to hunt right on in
 
Small grains bring pheasants. Iowa had oats, the Dakotas have oats and wheat.

That and grass hay that gets cut once or twice, not four or five like now. Oats seeded early April and not touched until harvest in late July is good habitat for all sorts of animals.

What about Jack rabbits in Iowa ? How many of them do you see ? My dad talked about shooting them by the truck load and selling them to the mink farm.

And no, they didn't shoot them all.
 
Chestle said:
I wouldn't go change out the bottom wire on 16 miles of fence either! But doing repairs or putting in new fence I think it's a pretty good idea.

My friend's fences didn't start out that way, they just progressively kept changing it over the years when doing fencing work where the birds are. There's still some bottom wire barb but usually not in areas you want to hunt.

As for dogs and fence-smart, it is usually the young ones that get cut but I've seen it on older dogs too. A lot of times fences are grown up pretty thick in various weeds and grass and I guess the dogs don't register it as fence until they hit the wire going through. The retrieve drive is pretty strong.

I have lost count of the times my buddy has sewn up fence-cut dogs over the years. Seems like every season the locals send 2-3 hunters out to our house at sundown with a fence cut dog.
Click to expand...

I have had customers dogs get cut a few times but not mine, that is why I wonder if it is different when they grow up around it.
 
haymaker said:
I have had customers dogs get cut a few times but not mine, that is why I wonder if it is different when they grow up around it.
Click to expand...

I think it does, running my dogs in the woods they don't encounter any fences.....they don't recognize the fences when we are out west, no major injuries but I do run vest on them for added protection.
 
Petry, This will be my last post on CRP. Google which states have most CRP land. There is an article from Great Falls Tribune, in 2016. It says the total dollars paid on CRP in Iowa in 2016 was $ 243,650,298. It also states CRP did not begin until 1985. THE HEYDAY OF IOWA PHEASANT HARVEST WAS THE 1970'S. CRP was meant to help wildlife return to the numbers of the 1970's. It has failed. These are facts. My point is not what people should do with private land. Spend your own money any way you want. My point is that if we spend $ 243,650,298 of PUBLIC TAX DOLLARS, the PUBLIC should benefit. What a novel idea!
 
One more fact. If we took the $ 243,650,298 spent in Iowa on temporary CRP in 2016, used 1/2 to purchase land even at your outrageous $ 16,000 per acre, and 1/2 for land management, we could have purchased 7,614 acres per year, and had $ 16,000 an acre for management. We could spend $2,000 per acre for initial costs, and $420 annually from then on ( 14,000 x .03 return ). If we had done this since 1985, we would have 236,034 acres of PROPERLY MANAGED PUBLIC ground for recreation. CRP has failed. Hunting, hiking, bike trails, bird watching, fishing, etc...... creating tourism and tax base for the people who fund the program. Private individuals who benefit from public tax dollars wont want to give that up, but a different direction would be much more effective, and benefit those who pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top