Notion on CRP

K

KSnative

Active member
A thought. Wide consensus that CRP is good for Mother Earth and for bird pops. Also, that at least in Kansas, gaining access to the birds CRP helps bolster is difficult and not getting less so.

So my thought is this. If one accepts CRP funds provided by the taxpayers - shouldn't the taxpayers have access to the birds they support with their wallets?

Serious question and the acreages that would open up for hunting would dwarf the excellent WIHA numbers in short order. Plus, it would spread the hunting pressure out tremendously - a further boon to the birds.

Seems like this would be a zero-cost solution to a significant problem.
 
BrownDogsCan2 said:
Crp payments aren’t high enough as it is to re enroll,
Click to expand...

So, if CRP payments aren't high enough to enroll as it is- linking enrollment to access would result in no additive losses to CRP. Right?

Farms and ranches are businesses. I doubt many would leave money on the table - I won't. And for those few that might - I guess we would just have to say thank you for your leadership in reducing the national debt, the U.S. Treasury miscellaneous receipts account welcomes your contribution.
 
I’d rather see an effort made to make up for some of the losses. Crp is beneficial hunted or not. And as far as the pheasant population goes right now it is critical that we don’t loose anymore habitat.
 
Last edited:
BrownDogsCan2 said:
I’d rather see an effort made to make up for some of the losses. Crp is beneficial hunted or not. And as far as the pheasant population goes right now it is critical that we don’t loose anymore habitat.
Click to expand...
What losses? CRP enrolment is competitive, at least in my neck of the plains. How much CRP money has been declined in your county? State?

You may find the facts here to be of interest. The potential for large scale expansion of hunting opportunities is substantial. Why would you NOT want that? https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/safe08.pdf
 
KSnative said:
What losses? CRP enrolment is competitive, at least in my neck of the plains. How much CRP money has been declined in your county? State?

You may find the facts here to be of interest. The potential for large scale expansion of hunting opportunities is substantial. Why would you NOT want that? https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/safe08.pdf
Click to expand...
I think enrollment dropped by 30 percent in 2012. 2018 it increased by 10 or 15 percent ? at 15 percent less dollar per acre? 2020 ? From what I’ve seen this year driving around I bet easily 25 percent is coming out.
 
Last edited:
KSnative said:
What losses? CRP enrolment is competitive, at least in my neck of the plains. How much CRP money has been declined in your county? State?

You may find the facts here to be of interest. The potential for large scale expansion of hunting opportunities is substantial. Why would you NOT want that? https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/safe08.pdf
Click to expand...

Plus. What impact do you think the many tens of thousands of sportsmen and women who would benefit from increased access might have on the political incentive to expand the CRP program? ("CRP - its not just for the farmers anymore").

The result would almost certainly be more - not less - total CRP acreage.
 
BrownDogsCan2 said:
I think enrollment dropped by 30 percent in 2012. 2018 it increased by 10 or 15 percent ? at 15 percent less dollar per acre? 2020 ? From what I saw this year driving around I bet easily 25 percent is coming out.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples to oranges. Enrollment did not decline because farmers opted out. It declined because it wasn't available, which is an entirely different issue. Relatively easy to blow off the relatively few (and dwindling) number of active farmers out there. I'd submit there are more active sportsmen/women than there active farmers. Our numbers could only help the CRP program's survival. Concur?
 
KSnative said:
You are comparing apples to oranges. Enrollment did not decline because farmers opted out. It declined because it wasn't available, which is an entirely different issue. Relatively easy to blow off the relatively few (and dwindling) number of active farmers out there. I'd submit there are more active sportsmen/women than there active farmers. Our numbers could only help the CRP program's survival. Concur?
Click to expand...
Also. Sorry, but I feel compelled to ask. When you are driving around (I presume, outside of Sedgewick county) - by what means are you able to spot acreages that will come out of CRP next year?
 
KSnative said:
Also. Sorry, but I feel compelled to ask. When you are driving around (I presume, outside of Sedgewick county) - by what means are you able to spot acreages that will come out of CRP next year?
Click to expand...
Contracts expired in Sept I believe. A lot was turned over and planted to wheat. A lot of it has been turned over since the first of the year. A lot has been hayed in preparation of being turned over. Several of the walkin pieces I have been in, ones that didnt look like those listed above, which I’ve driven by plenty, have been driven all over some with track machines and surveyed evident by pink paint in the fields which I can only assume has something to do with filter strips.
 
We have IHAP here in Iowa, a program where the CRP landowner can get another incentive payment to allow hunting. Most CRP doesn't have the signage for this, so most don't accept this extra incentive. I think that a decent percentage of CRP is put into the program for the landowner's family to hunt. I am not sure if the IHAP program has liability protection for the landowners, it almost has to, if not, that alone would discouage participation. I think most landowners not want the general public out on their land, whether they are hunting or doing who knows what. Sportmen that have purchased land and enrolled it in CRP wouldn't be down with this either. If allowing the public to hunt on CRP acres was required, it might save a lot of government payments, but would not create near the acres or have the bird populations we now have, due to the enrollment being even lower than now with that requirement. I was thinking KS had lots of public ground already, not so much?

What losses? CRP enrolment is competitive, at least in my neck of the plains. How much CRP money has been declined in your county? State?

Well, as far as CRP funds declined, I would say in my area I have seen ZERO new CRP since 2016, so ALL of it has evidently been declined. There are programs open to enrollment, but no takers at the current rates it seems. Make it required to allow public hunting on the CRP contracts and then you will see the losses in the reduction in renewals. Our IHAP acres compared to the acres in CRP not enrolled in IHAP, will show how popular that would be. Dig up that info for Iowa and post it here.
 
It certainly wouldn’t increase CRP, probably reduce it drastically. I entered some ground into CRP in 2020, just an area that is too wet to farm and not big enough to tile, three acres. No way would I have done it if hunting was part of the mix. The payment is about 2/3 of the rate on the rest I entered in earlier.
I will be putting much more in the EQUIP program, it pays very well but there has to be water quality issues.

New emphasis on environmental preservation with the current USDA might increase land in some sort of reserve. Long term easements would get more attention if the qualifications were lower.

If there was some sort of bonus on top of a decent payment rate to allow public use that might attract some. When we were in the IHAP program there wasn’t any payment to the landowner.
 
Last edited:
McFarmer said:
It certainly wouldn’t increase CRP, probably reduce it drastically. I entered some ground into CRP in 2020, just an area that is too wet to farm and not big enough to tile, three acres. No way would I have done it if hunting was part of the mix. The payment is about 2/3 of the rate on the rest I entered in earlier.
I will be putting much more in the EQUIP program, it pays very well but there has to be water quality issues.

New emphasis on environmental preservation with the current USDA might increase land in some sort of reserve. Long term easements would get more attention if the qualifications were lower.

If there was some sort of bonus on top of a decent payment rate to allow public use that might attract some. When we were in the IHAP program there wasn’t any payment to the landowner.
Click to expand...
Well, the good news - I guess - is that controlling the environment is now considered a priority project for each and every federal government agency. However, as I understand it, the current thinking is along the lines of new governmental mandates - not additional "incentives".
 
remy3424 said:
We have IHAP here in Iowa, a program where the CRP landowner can get another incentive payment to allow hunting. Most CRP doesn't have the signage for this, so most don't accept this extra incentive. I think that a decent percentage of CRP is put into the program for the landowner's family to hunt. I am not sure if the IHAP program has liability protection for the landowners, it almost has to, if not, that alone would discouage participation. I think most landowners not want the general public out on their land, whether they are hunting or doing who knows what. Sportmen that have purchased land and enrolled it in CRP wouldn't be down with this either. If allowing the public to hunt on CRP acres was required, it might save a lot of government payments, but would not create near the acres or have the bird populations we now have, due to the enrollment being even lower than now with that requirement. I was thinking KS had lots of public ground already, not so much?

What losses? CRP enrolment is competitive, at least in my neck of the plains. How much CRP money has been declined in your county? State?

Well, as far as CRP funds declined, I would say in my area I have seen ZERO new CRP since 2016, so ALL of it has evidently been declined. There are programs open to enrollment, but no takers at the current rates it seems. Make it required to allow public hunting on the CRP contracts and then you will see the losses in the reduction in renewals. Our IHAP acres compared to the acres in CRP not enrolled in IHAP, will show how popular that would be. Dig up that info for Iowa and post it here.
Click to expand...

What is the source of your information, sir? Not saying it isn't so in your particular county - but how is it that you came to know that a large and growing amount of CRP money has been left on the table in your county? Even more to the point, how much have you - personally - withdrawn from the CRP program because the payments (computed, as I understand it, at average dry land farm rental rates for your individual state) weren't sufficient to compete with alternate uses? Your analysis overlooks a very significant point. Today, you can collect CRP funds and opt not to also accept the headaches that go with a small additive amount of IHAP funding. And that is very cool for you. However, if CRP funding without public access ceases to be an option - you might reconsider. Active farmers and businessmen, for the most part, would.

I understand your point of view. You don't much care for the notion of a taxpayer quid-pro-quo in return for your not farming unproductive or environmentally ill suited ground that you already own. One might say you have a dog in that fight - a big one. But I think that it would be fair to say that the tax paying, hunting community also has a stake in this. They pay for the CRP that we then lease out to them for hunting. Correct?
 
BrownDogsCan2 said:
Contracts expired in Sept I believe. A lot was turned over and planted to wheat. A lot of it has been turned over since the first of the year. A lot has been hayed in preparation of being turned over. Several of the walkin pieces I have been in, ones that didnt look like those listed above, which I’ve driven by plenty, have been driven all over some with track machines and surveyed evident by pink paint in the fields which I can only assume has something to do with filter strips.
Click to expand...
Pardon my apparent ignorance, but are we given to understand that you continue to maintain that you can visually identify current and future ex-CRP by driving past it. And that pink paint means a planned CRP withdrawal and/or that filter strips are somehow incompatible with CRP (as opposed to being the very embodiment of it)? Must be unique to your part of Sedgewick county. Are you sure the pink paint isn't laying out new housing developments, or new malls?
 
KSnative said:
Pardon my apparent ignorance, but are we given to understand that you continue to maintain that you can visually identify current and future ex-CRP by driving past it. And that pink paint means a planned CRP withdrawal and/or that filter strips are somehow incompatible with CRP (as opposed to being the very embodiment of it)? Must be unique to your part of Sedgewick county. Are you sure the pink paint isn't laying out new housing developments, or new malls?
Click to expand...
In my experience usually used to mark the terraces they are preparing to build.
 
KSnative said:
What is the source of your information, sir? Not saying it isn't so in your particular county - but how is it that you came to know that a large and growing amount of CRP money has been left on the table in your county? Even more to the point, how much have you - personally - withdrawn from the CRP program because the payments (computed, as I understand it, at average dry land farm rental rates for your individual state) weren't sufficient to compete with alternate uses? Your analysis overlooks a very significant point. Today, you can collect CRP funds and opt not to also accept the headaches that go with a small additive amount of IHAP funding. And that is very cool for you. However, if CRP funding without public access ceases to be an option - you might reconsider. Active farmers and businessmen, for the most part, would.

I understand your point of view. You don't much care for the notion of a taxpayer quid-pro-quo in return for your not farming unproductive or environmentally ill suited ground that you already own. One might say you have a dog in that fight - a big one. But I think that it would be fair to say that the tax paying, hunting community also has a stake in this. They pay for the CRP that we then lease out to them for hunting. Correct?
Click to expand...
So I just tested your theory by texting 4 farmers. I simply asked if public access was mandated with CRP would you enroll new land or keep your current contracts. In under 10 minutes I had two f--- no, one hell no, and another plain no.
 
Thatguy said:
So I just tested your theory by texting 4 farmers. I simply asked if public access was mandated with CRP would you enroll new land or keep your current contracts. In under 10 minutes I had two f--- no, one hell no, and another plain no.
Click to expand...
Yes. Very scientific. Four hand-picked friends certainly constitute an adequate basis for drawing nationwide conclusions. Maybe I should select 4 random taxpaying who are NOT direct beneficiaries the same question. The answer might be a tad different - and taxpayers grossly outnumber farmers, I'd submit.

Farmers who get CRP payments aren't fond of my suggestion, and we both know why - can't say I blame 'em. Their oxen are being gored here. But when it comes down to an actual business decision to be made, I'd be very surprised if they didn't all (not most - all) quietly accept the payments. Which have actually gone up in value, as the total acreage diminished slightly. Source here: Hardly unbiased, in that the Farm Bureau that many here love to hate certainly favors large handouts for their constituency: Reviewing 2020 CRP Enrollment (fb.org)
 
KSnative said:
Pardon my apparent ignorance, but are we given to understand that you continue to maintain that you can visually identify current and future ex-CRP by driving past it. And that pink paint means a planned CRP withdrawal and/or that filter strips are somehow incompatible with CRP (as opposed to being the very embodiment of it)? Must be unique to your part of Sedgewick county. Are you sure the pink paint isn't laying out new housing developments, or new malls?
Click to expand...
If you go back I said this year. If 2020 contracts expired sept1 anything after that would be this year correct? I’m speaking of rush ness and hodgeman ctys. Tens of thousands of acres driven by I can guarantee you without a doubt, out. That is where my family is originally from. I spoke with a person who had purchased land that used to be in the family that has taken an 80 out as well as that quarter. I spent 4 days working my way from Dodge over to Lakin up to Scott back west and then down to Sublette and saw much the same. My wife’s family is from Liberal I’m sure if I poked around it would be similar.
The paint yes it was some crazy lavender pinkish colored paint. It was marked around an untouched waterway next to winter wheat planted into crp that had been turned under. As well as 20 miles away in a 3/4 section of untouched terraced crp that had cat tracks in parallel lines in as much as I walked of it. I saw similar painting in another field. If you want gps coordinates I can give you 2 them the third one I’ll have to drive around and find it again
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top