tmrichardson
Banned
Deleted Deleted
Last edited:
Should CRP, CREP and other program $$ require public access?
- Thread starter tmrichardson
- Start date
I voted no barriers because to encumber the habitat programs priced per acre as they are now, and burden them with additional access mandates, would reduce the enrollment to levels which will render the program inconsequential. The error in all this is that the fish and game, being held in "public trust", so to speak by the government, that cannot or refused to allow public access to harvest the game by the public originally. That battle was lost when the various governments sold off or gave ground, to private individuals, while making no provisions to allow access for legitimate hunting and fishing. Originally all land should have been held it trust by the government, with willable long term leases, like 100 years, to individuals for various agricultural and other use. Instead our hunting and fishing heritage was "thrown in" with the sale. Out west, I have had to go to the sheriff to get access up a public road, gated by a landowner, to specifically eliminate public access, and control BLM land they do not own. some BLM is landlocked, and inaccessable, except through private property, good luck getting access! In short the sytem we have is terrible, but we aren't going to fix it, without some sort of cataclismic land reform, for which there is little appetite, and much resistence,is not even on a list which includes healthcare reform, unenployment, budget woes, residential real estate collapse, on and on.
UGUIDE
Active member
oldandnew, interesting explanation of where we are at. I was not aware of history. Thank you.
I voted "other-explain". CRP is the federal government, paying the landowner, on behalf of the taxpayer, the lease and reserve conservation rights and access on the landowners land for an environmental issue. Period. It does not pay the landowner for hunting rights. It is not part of the deal. Period.
Now the South Dakota Jim River CREP CRP does pay an additional bonus rent and mandates open access for public hunting to be eligible for the program. What is that aprt of rent? $40/acre on top of the roughly $100/acre base rent. So the SD GFP pays for that $40/acre portion of rent on behalf of the general hunting public that pays for a license whether resident or not.
So in other words......in order for CRP to be competitive (with other farming operation practices be it livestock, crops, hunting, oil, etc) $40/acre is the cost of open access ON TOP of a competitive base CRP rental rate.
Let me say this another way. The "Market" has determined the value of hunting rights to be $40/acre on CRP ground. This market value also assume that there are landowners that are actually signing there land up in this program of which I do not know. If not the market price of public access on CRP group for hunting purposes could be north of $40/acre.
The vote option "Same as #1 with out vehicle access, hunting is standing crops" is not really valid since like the Jim River CREP, public hunting is limited to the CRP not the rest of landowners land. Plus the general taxpayer does not want hunters driving on CRP they are paying for to address and environmental issue and reduce the ability of that installed practice to reduce the the effect on the buffer of that issue.
I voted "other-explain". CRP is the federal government, paying the landowner, on behalf of the taxpayer, the lease and reserve conservation rights and access on the landowners land for an environmental issue. Period. It does not pay the landowner for hunting rights. It is not part of the deal. Period.
Now the South Dakota Jim River CREP CRP does pay an additional bonus rent and mandates open access for public hunting to be eligible for the program. What is that aprt of rent? $40/acre on top of the roughly $100/acre base rent. So the SD GFP pays for that $40/acre portion of rent on behalf of the general hunting public that pays for a license whether resident or not.
So in other words......in order for CRP to be competitive (with other farming operation practices be it livestock, crops, hunting, oil, etc) $40/acre is the cost of open access ON TOP of a competitive base CRP rental rate.
Let me say this another way. The "Market" has determined the value of hunting rights to be $40/acre on CRP ground. This market value also assume that there are landowners that are actually signing there land up in this program of which I do not know. If not the market price of public access on CRP group for hunting purposes could be north of $40/acre.
The vote option "Same as #1 with out vehicle access, hunting is standing crops" is not really valid since like the Jim River CREP, public hunting is limited to the CRP not the rest of landowners land. Plus the general taxpayer does not want hunters driving on CRP they are paying for to address and environmental issue and reduce the ability of that installed practice to reduce the the effect on the buffer of that issue.
Last edited:
henhenROOSTER!!!
New member
No one should "have to" do anything with their own land. If gov't $$ means a farmer can't charge anything at all and/or have a say over who enters his land or not - then I guess everybody in America should demand free eats too because of agricultural subsidies!...I'm grateful for all those who of their own volition have allowed me to hunt their land over the years for pay or not, since I don't own ANY!
I'm just glad there is somebody out there creating or leaving aside some habitat on their place for the sake of wildlife period, I don't care how it happens or if I ever personally gain access to all of it. Take all of those $$ away & practically NOBODY'S gonna focus on wildlife habitat out of the sheer goodness of their heart when they have to make a living 1st just like the rest of us. The few who will be left, subsequently choosing to spend or fore-go mega-bucks in creating wildlife habitat all on their own sure as heck ain't gonna let just anybody come tromp it over, I wouldn't!
C'mon, we live in a real world down here with very complicated shades of grey - no pie in the sky on either end of the spectrum! :cheers:
I'm just glad there is somebody out there creating or leaving aside some habitat on their place for the sake of wildlife period, I don't care how it happens or if I ever personally gain access to all of it. Take all of those $$ away & practically NOBODY'S gonna focus on wildlife habitat out of the sheer goodness of their heart when they have to make a living 1st just like the rest of us. The few who will be left, subsequently choosing to spend or fore-go mega-bucks in creating wildlife habitat all on their own sure as heck ain't gonna let just anybody come tromp it over, I wouldn't!
C'mon, we live in a real world down here with very complicated shades of grey - no pie in the sky on either end of the spectrum! :cheers:
UGUIDE
Active member
Chuckles, I agree. Nationwide option on this CRP program would be great. Obvioulsy the Fed's (aka taxpayer thru politicians (aka you and I) did not wnat to foot the extra $40/acre so that is where the state $$ came in.
Access and the fear of liability, Biggest issue
I was unaware of the Jim River program. It sure makes sense that there should be a tiered payment system to allow for increased per acre fees to allow public access, for those participants who want to take advantage of the opportunity. One problem which we haven't addressed in all this is liability. It is my opinion that the fear of liability, is the single biggest obstruction to public access. Some states with walk in programs have solved this with indenification laws, to protect the land owner from reckless acts of the public. Let me clarify, these people are not so much afraid of shot cattle, or crop damage, but mortified at the prospect of being sued because some stranger got hurt through his own carelessness! Win lose or draw in court, it's an instant $10,000.00 legal bill, a dreadful hassle, and that's if you win! There are some creative solutions available, but it's going to take a broad based effort to make it a reality, and may by necessity be a state by state effort. My guess with the liability protection, lots of property would open up to public access, difficult to say yes when a simple act of kindness might cost you everything. Shouldn't be that way. My old battle weary corporate attorney always says "no good deed goes unpunished".
I was unaware of the Jim River program. It sure makes sense that there should be a tiered payment system to allow for increased per acre fees to allow public access, for those participants who want to take advantage of the opportunity. One problem which we haven't addressed in all this is liability. It is my opinion that the fear of liability, is the single biggest obstruction to public access. Some states with walk in programs have solved this with indenification laws, to protect the land owner from reckless acts of the public. Let me clarify, these people are not so much afraid of shot cattle, or crop damage, but mortified at the prospect of being sued because some stranger got hurt through his own carelessness! Win lose or draw in court, it's an instant $10,000.00 legal bill, a dreadful hassle, and that's if you win! There are some creative solutions available, but it's going to take a broad based effort to make it a reality, and may by necessity be a state by state effort. My guess with the liability protection, lots of property would open up to public access, difficult to say yes when a simple act of kindness might cost you everything. Shouldn't be that way. My old battle weary corporate attorney always says "no good deed goes unpunished".
UGUIDE
Active member
M. R. Byrd
Well-known member
Just so no one gets the wrong idea, CRP payments vary from area to area. Here the annual payment is in the low $40's per acre.
I know a guy, though not well, that has a beautiful place with beautiful yard, swimming pool, patio with a gourmet outdoor cooking area and a $400,000 mortgage. One of these days when the grandkids are here, I think I will slip over that way and use his place, after all, I am helping him pay for it by paying my taxes and he is getting money back from Uncle Sam because of he is taking advantage of the mortgage interest deduction on his income taxes.
I am a farmer/rancher. I have land enrolled in CRP. I do not lease my land to KDWP for WIHA. I spend a lot of dollars every year on habitat. I do not have a high fence and fly pen over my land, therefore, wildlife I feed and care for through my crops and habitat are free to go wherever they please. If I am required to provide public access to my land because I get a CRP payment, my land will not be enrolled in CRP.
I know a guy, though not well, that has a beautiful place with beautiful yard, swimming pool, patio with a gourmet outdoor cooking area and a $400,000 mortgage. One of these days when the grandkids are here, I think I will slip over that way and use his place, after all, I am helping him pay for it by paying my taxes and he is getting money back from Uncle Sam because of he is taking advantage of the mortgage interest deduction on his income taxes.
I am a farmer/rancher. I have land enrolled in CRP. I do not lease my land to KDWP for WIHA. I spend a lot of dollars every year on habitat. I do not have a high fence and fly pen over my land, therefore, wildlife I feed and care for through my crops and habitat are free to go wherever they please. If I am required to provide public access to my land because I get a CRP payment, my land will not be enrolled in CRP.
The notion doesn't even make sense.
The amount of subsidies offered (either transparent or hidden) to the same farmer for producing a bushell of corn FAR outweigh anything that he gets by enrolling in CRP. Do you somehow feel entitled to strolling over and picking a few bushell?
Come to think of it, my neighbor bought a new Silverado last year. Didn't my Fed tax $$ go into bailing out GM? So, really, if I think about it, that's my truck too. I think I will pop over there in the morning and let him know I'm taking it into town.
The amount of subsidies offered (either transparent or hidden) to the same farmer for producing a bushell of corn FAR outweigh anything that he gets by enrolling in CRP. Do you somehow feel entitled to strolling over and picking a few bushell?
Come to think of it, my neighbor bought a new Silverado last year. Didn't my Fed tax $$ go into bailing out GM? So, really, if I think about it, that's my truck too. I think I will pop over there in the morning and let him know I'm taking it into town.
beaglebob1
New member
I agree with you sir:thumbsup::cheers:Just so no one gets the wrong idea, CRP payments vary from area to area. Here the annual payment is in the low $40's per acre.
I know a guy, though not well, that has a beautiful place with beautiful yard, swimming pool, patio with a gourmet outdoor cooking area and a $400,000 mortgage. One of these days when the grandkids are here, I think I will slip over that way and use his place, after all, I am helping him pay for it by paying my taxes and he is getting money back from Uncle Sam because of he is taking advantage of the mortgage interest deduction on his income taxes.
I am a farmer/rancher. I have land enrolled in CRP. I do not lease my land to KDWP for WIHA. I spend a lot of dollars every year on habitat. I do not have a high fence and fly pen over my land, therefore, wildlife I feed and care for through my crops and habitat are free to go wherever they please. If I am required to provide public access to my land because I get a CRP payment, my land will not be enrolled in CRP.
M. R. Byrd
Well-known member
I meant to mention that the Kansas WIHA program has lost a couple hundred thousand acres due mostly, I understand, to expiring CRP contracts. I was told today that the program has been under a million acres the last two years.
moellermd
Super Moderator
I guess I am a little torn on this subject. I think the bottom line is that fee hunting in SD would be non-existent without CRP payments supplementing it. In my neck of the woods if a requirement was made that no fee hunting could be done on CRP ground it would not effect enrollment at all.
quail hound
Moderator
I voted other because I have never personally seen an acre of crp so I have no dog in this fight. I would however like to see more work going into access easments on public lands we have landlocked by private land.
I would however like to see more work going into access easments on public lands we have landlocked by private land.I know a guy, though not well, that has a beautiful place with beautiful yard, swimming pool, patio with a gourmet outdoor cooking area and a $400,000 mortgage. One of these days when the grandkids are here, I think I will slip over that way and use his place, after all, I am helping him pay for it by paying my taxes and he is getting money back from Uncle Sam because of he is taking advantage of the mortgage interest deduction on his income taxes.
Last edited:
moellermd
Super Moderator
I don't think that tax breaks on mortgages and farm subsidies are analogous to a CRP payment. CRP in a way is the government renting the land from you.
By the way those farm subsidies payments that show up on line include CRP payments and disaster payments. Corn and Soybean producers have not received direct support for many years.
By the way those farm subsidies payments that show up on line include CRP payments and disaster payments. Corn and Soybean producers have not received direct support for many years.
M. R. Byrd
Well-known member
Works for me.
Let's start building a list of items to be eliminated. Add as you would like---
All farm payments
Mortgage interest deduction
Free school lunches
WIC
Ethanol sudsidy
Public hunting areas
I'm with you. Not sure about public hunting grounds. That's a states rights issue. If South Dakotans want public humting to draw in tourist dollars that's their business. If Kansas wants public hunting to draw in hunters that's their business. It's the federal subsidies that's the problem. Keep spending, we are only 14 trillion in the hole.
AtTheMurph
Well-known member
Meaning that ethanol subsidies are just another form of agricultural welfare to farmers.
I'm a landowner and I have and have had land in the CRP program. I am renting it to the govt but as the owner I don't cede hunting rights, only the right to grow grasses of their specification and I need to maintain the ground by their rules and cut and plant and plow and weed and.....
It's freaking hassle and if they say you didn't meet your obligation they can take back all payments.
I was the single largest recipeint of CRP payment in 2 counties, mainly because we decided to put an entire farm and a good part of another entirely in the CRP program for many years.
A couple years ago we told them to shove it because the program was just more hassle than it was worth. Where we're at, we lost money over farming it or renting it to have it in the program but wanted to do it for habitat and our own hunting.
IF the govt would simply get out of the farming business there would be plenty of fallow land around. Guys wouldn't be plowing right up to streams and knocking down every tree and fence row in sight to plant every single available square inch of ground.
The govt has screwed up the free market and caused prices of commodities, ground and inputs to rise so that it is necessary for a guy to make a profit he has to farm every inch.
It is the govt that has made Calif the biggest milk producing state because subsidies make calif profitable over WI, which has the perfect land and climate for milk production. The Govt is why there are huge dairies in FL. I mean WTF? Milk can be produced in WI far more cheaply than in FL but FL has huge dairy operations. It's no different for corn or peanuts or any other crop.
Politicians meddle and we end up paying mire, have less economical production, more wasted capital, and these politicians create a system that is then dependent on them to keep funding these BS programs because now farmers have huge investments based upon the messed up market politicians create.
I have friends who farm 3000 acres of $7000/ac land who are as conservative politically as anyone you would ever meet but they're all voting for democrats because they know their entire business collapses without either high prices or govt support. If the Republicans promised that for them and created programs then they would vote for them too.
This crap pisses me off! BTW, I hold a B.S. in Economics and have worked in the financial field for 25 years.