Notion on CRP

KSnative said:
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)
Click to expand...
Well I started a facebook poll. Up to 16 not a single yes. You do realize they can put it into native grass, hay it twice a year, make money and never have to allow the public on it right?
 
BrownDogsCan2 said:
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. 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
Click to expand...
I'm not sure exactly what distinguishes CRP that has been turned under from, say "regular" grass or crops that have been turned under - just not sure how you can be so sure it was CRP (except for the part you sold). And the significance of the paint (or of terraced CRP with pink paint vs unterraced CRP) still mystifies me. Be that as it may, nationwide there has been a slight decline in overall CRP acreage, as per-acre payments have actually increased. So guess it is good to know (kind of) that our farmers are doing well enough to drop CRP in favor of active production (assuming no environmental damage accompanies that). Hope the new owner will, at least, leave the corners and ditches alone.

But you make a very important point. The fellow you sold out to didn't pull the CRP to avoid public hunting access; he turned it to a more economically attractive use. More money per acre in CRP payments didn't sway him, but would fewer intrusive governmental CRP maintenance requirements have altered that equation? I, too, would like to see more pheasants (especially if I had access to them).
 
Thatguy said:
Well I started a facebook poll. Up to 16 not a single yes. You do realize they can put it into native grass, hay it twice a year, make money and never have to allow the public on it right?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you couched your Facebook quiz (a place I have never gone, and never will) in a pure, scientific, unbiased way. Who hangs out on Facebook, these days, anyway? Built in bias there. Fxxx The Zuck! Did you remember to mention that you, personally, declined all CRP on your property - with out even being faced with allowing public access to the benefits it engenders (along with the wildlife projects afforded you by the citizens of Kansas) ? Not accusing you of anything - we are fundamentally on the same side of this and related issues - but the unforgiving might conceivably interpret that as, possibly, maybe even borderline hypocritical. : - )

Also sure you are aware that CRP is frequently hayed or grazed, depending on conditions of course. And that the deer (or other) leases don't exclude the CRP income - while benefitting directly from it. Do you and your fellow Facebook consumers think THAT is fair to the vast majority of hunters who pay (for the CRP, that is), but don't get to play?
 
Last edited:
KSnative said:
I'm not sure exactly what distinguishes CRP that has been turned under from, say "regular" grass or crops that have been turned under - just not sure how you can be so sure it was CRP (except for the part you sold). And the significance of the paint (or of terraced CRP with pink paint vs unterraced CRP) still mystifies me. Be that as it may, nationwide there has been a slight decline in overall CRP acreage, as per-acre payments have actually increased. So guess it is good to know (kind of) that our farmers are doing well enough to drop CRP in favor of active production (assuming no environmental damage accompanies that). Hope the new owner will, at least, leave the corners and ditches alone.

But you make a very important point. The fellow you sold out to didn't pull the CRP to avoid public hunting access; he turned it to a more economically attractive use. More money per acre in CRP payments didn't sway him, but would fewer intrusive governmental CRP maintenance requirements have altered that equation? I, too, would like to see more pheasants (especially if I had access to them).
Click to expand...
You need to get out more🙂
 
I think its fair as is. Prevents erosion, provides me with cleaner water, etc. Not to mention that CRP I cant hunt raises birds that go places I can.

facebook question is "Farmers/Ranchers if public access was mandated for CRP enrollment would you enroll or stay in your current contract".

I cant go to the fire station and make them move a truck so I can wash my truck in the bay, and I pay for that. I cant go pull out their brush truck to help me burn pasture. You are going on ignore. Obviously you are totally ignorant
 
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...
OK, In my limited observations driving 100s of miles in my local rural area, I have not seen a new field of CRP since 2016 enrollments...this is my source, just personal observation. Share with everyone the number of newly enrolled acres this past year (I am not sure there were any programs available other than filter strips between 2016 and 2019 or 2020). This number will be a fraction of the acres that enrolled in 2015/2016. If the enrollments were happening rapidly, the program would be closed, they only accept a limited number of acres (or funds for the contracts).

There isn't much coming out because they were very few acres in CRP prior to this, most were just filter strips, I couldn't point out one that wasn't next-to/surrounding a water-shed. It will be 2025/2026 and 2030/2031 when the current CRP contracts expire (depending if they were 10 or 15 year contracts)...and it is anyones guess if there will be a program to keep those acres out of production when that time comes. We are just seeing (last year) the huge bounty of birds from the current CRP enrollments. I personal think that is pretty exciting!

One thing you could call me out on is the payment for allowing the public hunting (IHAP), I am just ASSUMING there is an addition incentive, can anyone confirm this and if so, the amount of that incentive?...I am just curious. As few IHAPs as there are, maybe that is just voluntary.

The quid-pro-quo, so in exchange for not farming the ground and producing a crop to market, the farmer will continue to pay property taxes do the required maintenance on these acres per the contract and the governement will pay/reimburse the owner at the agreed contract rate. Oh and now you want to add that they will also be required to allow the public to hunt anything legal to hunt on these said acres. Guessing that that won't be too popular if new contracts include that.

Are you the same fella that slams PF at every opportunity and now CPR....if so, it's like you are anti-pheasant.

My last post in this thread.
 
Again, as I said earlier, no IHAP payments. The state assumes liability and the DNR manages it. Management consists of seeding, burning and signage. I had two farms in the program but dropped out due to littering, and hunters thinking they could go anywhere, on the map or not.

CRP payment rates have declined by probably 1/3 the last three years or so. I’m thinking they will increase with the new administration. Or maybe another program will be introduced.

As has been said many times, the purpose of CRP is land conservation, not providing anyone hunting opportunities.
 
For the guy that doesn’t own any CRP that sounds like a great idea(IE the original poster) but in reality you would see renewals and new enrollment go way down. As an example I am looking at buying a piece of ground that currently has decent amount in crp with the idea and hope of keeping it on n CRp beyond this contract. If there was a condition that had to allow public access there is not a chance in hell I would be looking at buying it.

I’m not sure where this idea originated from but it really is one of the most off the wall, no way it would work I have heard!
 
Matt D said:
For the guy that doesn’t own any CRP that sounds like a great idea(IE the original poster) but in reality you would see renewals and new enrollment go way down. As an example I am looking at buying a piece of ground that currently has decent amount in crp with the idea and hope of keeping it on n CRp beyond this contract. If there was a condition that had to allow public access there is not a chance in hell I would be looking at buying it.

I’m not sure where this idea originated from but it really is one of the most off the wall, no way it would work I have heard!
Click to expand...
One thing buyers around here are doing is buying a property and then placing it in permanent easement with the NRCS. The NRCS pays the new owner 90% of the value, digs ponds, breaks tile, seeds and whatever needs done. A 30 year easement is available for 75% payment.

The buyer then has a farm to hunt and paid 10% of the value. I know of five entire farms within 6 miles of me where that has been done.

We considered that for a farm my mother had but the capital gains killed the deal. New buyers wouldn’t have that problem.
 
Matt D said:
For the guy that doesn’t own any CRP that sounds like a great idea(IE the original poster) but in reality you would see renewals and new enrollment go way down. As an example I am looking at buying a piece of ground that currently has decent amount in crp with the idea and hope of keeping it on n CRp beyond this contract. If there was a condition that had to allow public access there is not a chance in hell I would be looking at buying it.

I’m not sure where this idea originated from but it really is one of the most off the wall, no way it would work I have heard!
Click to expand...
FWIW, I'm the original poster and have owned CRP for a very long time. I disagree with your conclusions, but acknowledge that my notion is DOA by popular demand. I can't say I've seen better (or any) other solutions proposed here for the widespread loss of access due to leasing that so many complain of here - but I don't personally lack access, so I guess one might say its not my problem. I'm just surprised at how many people who more/less demand more public access, who at the same time emphatically insist they would decline CRP if they had to return the favor.

With CRP payouts now being increased by as much as 20%, and with about a million acres expected to be added to the existing program nationwide under the new administration, so I do plan to sign up for even more.
 
KSnative said:
FWIW, I'm the original poster and have owned CRP for a very long time. I disagree with your conclusions, but acknowledge that my notion is DOA by popular demand. I can't say I've seen better (or any) other solutions proposed here for the widespread loss of access due to leasing that so many complain of here - but I don't personally lack access, so I guess one might say its not my problem. I'm just surprised at how many people who more/less demand more public access, who at the same time emphatically insist they would decline CRP if they had to return the favor.

With CRP payouts now being increased by as much as 20%, and with about a million acres expected to be added to the existing program nationwide under the new administration, so I do plan to sign up for even more.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should lead by being the first to voluntarily open your CRP up to who ever wants to hunt it. Sure some people would be very glad to have the additional access.
 
What is your source for the following:

“With CRP payouts now being increased by as much as 20%, and with about a million acres expected to be added to the existing program nationwide under the new administration, so I do plan to sign up for even more.”
 
KSnative said:
FWIW, I'm the original poster and have owned CRP for a very long time. I disagree with your conclusions, but acknowledge that my notion is DOA by popular demand. I can't say I've seen better (or any) other solutions proposed here for the widespread loss of access due to leasing that so many complain of here - but I don't personally lack access, so I guess one might say its not my problem. I'm just surprised at how many people who more/less demand more public access, who at the same time emphatically insist they would decline CRP if they had to return the favor.

With CRP payouts now being increased by as much as 20%, and with about a million acres expected to be added to the existing program nationwide under the new administration, so I do plan to sign up for even more.
Click to expand...


You claim to own land in KS - how much I dont know - I think flint hills region and it seems you get some CRP payments and live out of state. Is your land enrolled in Walk in Hunting?
 
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...
Well I live out here and I can. Browdogs is absolutely correct. It has came out at an astonishing rate. Hayed, plowed, ready to be plowed, etc. Every week I see more coming out, and my farmer friends keep me informed of what acreage is coming out next. Going to be a rough go this coming year. Lets pray we don't get any bad weather the next 2 months.
 
KsHusker said:
You claim to own land in KS - how much I dont know - I think flint hills region and it seems you get some CRP payments and live out of state. Is your land enrolled in Walk in Hunting?
Click to expand...
No, I have never taken one dime in WIHA funds and yes, I do "claim" to own land in Kansas. It is precisely the type of attitude you demonstrate that sells purple paint by the bucket - may be an internet phenomenon.

You kind of remind me of some fellows with out of state tags who ran me down and attempted to place me under citizens arrest while they called the sheriff. They were quite upset with me, as they had hunted the place for years and objected to my poaching. I let them go on for a while before pointing out that I was the fellow who pays the taxes on the property we were all standing on - and had been for many years. True story.

But they were a rare exception, at least in my experience - and one I've not had with Kansas hunters.
 
westksbowhunter said:
Yes he does. You and I hunt the same general areas, mostly Ness and Rush for me. I lost well over half of my good hunting spots this year.
Click to expand...
Curious. How did you lose "your" properties? You have a rather entitled attitude, one I'm seeing way too much of here (to my great surprise).
 
KSnative said:
Curious. How did you lose "your" properties? You have a rather entitled attitude, one I'm seeing way too much of here (to my great surprise).
Click to expand...
Do you listen or just talk? See the problem with your plan is if the land owner can’t tell the difference between crp and crop or pasture residue how is the everyday man supposed too. It’ll cost a fortune but maybe we can put up signs
 
McFarmer said:
What is your source for the following:

“With CRP payouts now being increased by as much as 20%, and with about a million acres expected to be added to the existing program nationwide under the new administration, so I do plan to sign up for even more.”
Click to expand...
USDA. You may have heard of them. You might find some of their other new goals and objectives to be of interest as well. Duck/duck them up if you wish. That's what I did.

I also found this to be of interest IRT the prospective new (old) USDA head: Biden’s Buddy Tom Vilsack Is No Friend to Farmers | The Nation
 
BrownDogsCan2 said:
Do you listen or just talk? See the problem with your plan is if the land owner can’t tell the difference between crp and crop or pasture residue how is the everyday man supposed too. It’ll cost a fortune but maybe we can put up signs
Click to expand...

Do you attempt to find solutions, or just whine about the solutions others propose?

Betcha PF and others would be delighted to provide signage. Also, in this day and age, I'm guessing there would be simple apps and/or on-line mapping solutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top