Should CRP, CREP and other program $$ require public access?
- Thread starter tmrichardson
- Start date
Your in it for profit argument holds no water!
As a landowner who gets CRP payment I can tell you it isn't for the hunting, I have never hunted my own CRP, I moved away from my land the year after my CRP was planted and it sure as shit ain't for the profit, I make $75 more an acre on the land that isn't in CRP! My CRP is Buffer strips along a drainage ditch that runs through my property. Roughly 12 acres. So I gave up $900 a year to do the right thing and improve my land. My land isn't paid for yet either so the $900 would come in pretty handy! If profit was what drove CRP there wouldn't be half the acres enrolled in the program as you can make alot more profit with other uses. Do people make a profit from CRP, if their land is free and clear yes they do, but not as much as they could make in other uses. To say it is only profit driven is narrow minded and short sighted!
So please explain to me how It is purley profit driven when actually farmers are paying so much more for rent than the American Taxpayer. If landowners didn't care about the land the highest rent bid would take the land everytime and CRP wouldn't stand a chance. From a strictly business standpoint CRP is one of the worst decision you could make for profits! People enroll in CRP take less profit to help the environment and wildlife. I have relatives that had CRP on my Great grandfather's farm, which they now own, but do not live there and do not hunt. I loved hunting there but when the CRP contract was up, it was plowed up because they were profit driven and rented it out to the highest bidder.
onpoint
Active member
a lot of CRP land is marginal crop land. That may not raise a good enough crop to pay as good as the government CRP pays. So, yes it can be a profit driven decision too.
Many who collect farm subsidies and CRP money, neither live on the land or even touch a piece of farm equipment.
Bachmann Farm Subsidies: Anti-Handout Rep. Personally Got $250K
She lives in the west metro area of Minneapolis, MN...no where's near a farm, nor does she personally farm a thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/bachmann-farm-subisidies_n_400608.html
Check out www.ewg.org
You can look up anybody who is collecting farm subsidies. I personally checked out some people. A person I know who is collecting big time, has his grandfathers name on some enrolled land. His grandfather is is 90 years old, lives in town and hasn't been on a tractor in 25 years or more.
Many who collect farm subsidies and CRP money, neither live on the land or even touch a piece of farm equipment.
Bachmann Farm Subsidies: Anti-Handout Rep. Personally Got $250K
She lives in the west metro area of Minneapolis, MN...no where's near a farm, nor does she personally farm a thing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/bachmann-farm-subisidies_n_400608.html
Check out www.ewg.org
You can look up anybody who is collecting farm subsidies. I personally checked out some people. A person I know who is collecting big time, has his grandfathers name on some enrolled land. His grandfather is is 90 years old, lives in town and hasn't been on a tractor in 25 years or more.
Last edited:
Just a question on public access. If you already allow some hunting on your land by your friends or family would this not count as public access? If so you still have control over who hunts and how many. If you do not allow hunting on your property and want to put in some crp, maybe this would be a way to open up some land for hunting that was closed? You could pick a few close friends to hunt and still have control of who hunts and at least some would benifit.
If you add what CRP pays plus what it can generate in hunting revenue, then it is feasible financialy. It benefits many types of wildlife. If it was just farmed there would be a lot less wildlife for everyone. It is a pain to put up with the government, but I think there is enough good that it is still worth it. If there would be a stipulation that required public access the rate would have to at least triple or I would not do it.
1) even in the marginal crop growing areas, which I live in, Cash rent pays more than CRP, CRP payment here $41-$49 an acre, cash rent $55-$90. Land is tight and if you want to farm it you have to pay for it. I don't think you will every find one farmer that will say "I just can't compete for cash rent with what the goverment is paying" They say it about other farmers but never CRP, because with CRP they can always pay more than the CRP rental rate. If a landlord puts land into CRP without caring about wildlife or the stewardship of the land and purely for the money it is because they are to lazy or just to stupid cash rent it out.
2) if you are honest, which I think you are, and if you know the whole bachman story, you will tell everyone that the $250,000 was collected over 11 years by her father-in-law, on his farm, that through some very good estate planning she and her husband now have an ownership stake because of the father-in-laws recent death. She is extremely right wing and the liberal media will spin a story to make her look bad everytime. FWIW, She would never get my vote.
onpoint
Active member
I'm not really against either. It's just that IMO..the programs are abused severally. A few years ago. There were people collecting cotton subsidies in Washington DC. When the last time you seen a cotton farm in DC?
Check out this couple
PIERRE, S.D. (AP) A Midland couple can avoid criminal charges for allegedly lying to the federal government if they comply with a federal program called pretrial diversion.
Prosecutors say 67-year-old XXXX and 63-year-old XXXXX(no reason to use their names) are accused of making false statements to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation and Farm Service Agency regarding preventive planting claims on more than 31,000 acres of spring wheat.
Lost it all!!!
Check out this auction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD_qRJEWneA
Read more on Bachmann...still using her dead fathers name
http://rippleinstillh2o.blogspot.com/2011/01/michele-bachmanns-family-farm-operating.html
Quote
"
Michele Bachmann’s family farm limited partnership in Buffalo County, WI, still lists her late father-in-law Paul Bachmann as the partnership’s registered agent and general partner with the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions, even though he has been deceased since May 2009. That puts the partnership in violation of Wisconsin state law, according to a spokesperson for the Department of Financial Institutions.
Quote
"BACHMANN’S FARM SUBSIDIES
Bachmann has claimed between $17,502 and $105,000 in income from the farm since 2007, according to her congressional financial disclosure forms for 2007, 2009 and 2010. She still has not reported her 2008 income from the farm on her disclosure form from that year—an apparent violation of yet another law--congressional reporting requirements.
Last edited:
Sorry but public access as meant in this thread is treating the land as if the goverment owned it and anyone could use it just as WMA are now.
M. R. Byrd
Well-known member
My first hand knowledge of CRP is from my area, a area that gets 18-20 inches of rainfall a year. Back in my early day the farming practice here was a wheat/summer fallow. For those unaware of this practice, it was because you could not raise continuous wheat because of the rain fall, so you would have wheat on half the acres, then the other half in fallow would be building soil moisture to raise a crop the next year. Also in use was clean farming with a one-way plow.
I have some dry creeks that run across my property. Back in the day of the one-way plow heavy rainfalls in the watershed area would produce rapid runoff, rapid rise to the dry creeks, bridges topped with flood waters or washed out. Over the years terraces and waterways dampened these effects and then came CRP. Now with the CRP in place there is a very slow and much reduced flood in these creeks. In my area not much water leaves a CRP field. The structure of the CRP field takes away from the rain, even a hard rain, the energy of the rainfall and gives the rain a chance to soak in before it runs downhill.
One benefit I see in my area from the CRP is reduced water erosion, reduced runoff water in the streams and less dirt and silt in the runoff water.
I have some dry creeks that run across my property. Back in the day of the one-way plow heavy rainfalls in the watershed area would produce rapid runoff, rapid rise to the dry creeks, bridges topped with flood waters or washed out. Over the years terraces and waterways dampened these effects and then came CRP. Now with the CRP in place there is a very slow and much reduced flood in these creeks. In my area not much water leaves a CRP field. The structure of the CRP field takes away from the rain, even a hard rain, the energy of the rainfall and gives the rain a chance to soak in before it runs downhill.
One benefit I see in my area from the CRP is reduced water erosion, reduced runoff water in the streams and less dirt and silt in the runoff water.
Excellent, used as the program was intended for the reasons it was intended! :10sign:
FCSpringer
Moderator
Clearly CRP type programs are very important to wild life. And clearly all decisions need to be up to the land owner as to who the heck is out there. Now if they want to profit off this program then by all means record it and tax it as income as do all. If it is ran as a proper business who cares. Now there should also be programs for them to put land in that is paid and deemed public. OH DA, there is.. It is called walk in areas. and we should be grateful they have them. Now with a small amount of reform I think this program could be improved greatly. I have seen some plot land paid in ND where it is clear the farmer has still had no intention to provide quality hunting for you. It was mowed flat and bailed. So they need to structure these type of sort of CRP programs, with a bit more competitive payment, since it seems it is not far from real rent in areas any way. Make it clear You will comply to public hunting, and "Not" farm it or mow it, bale it etc. Even if they were to pay more for less acres of this type, and have it as real advantageous quality cover, It would be way better then the crap they called plots on hundreds of acres I saw. It just became a hand out to a greedy person who had no intention of providing quality habitat. Give them there 15 year programs, pay more for less far better walk in acres. That would seem to me as a way to spend the money more wisely. Instead of "we have 10,000 crappy walk in acres here for you" We now spent your tax dollars on "5,000" absolutely beautiful acres for ya instead. This should lead to a more positive experience for all. Hunters with the feeling there $ was spent wisely, and get some quality hunts in. They would not be driving hundreds of Map miles to be disappointed at each stop. And some disgruntle people do dumb things all mad, which ruins land owner relations. And this not so nice land owner in the first place sort of started the whole thing by holding out his hand, and chuckeling as he trashed any chances of hunting for you. He did leave nice hiking oppertunitys how ever.
It is about getting quality land owners, just as hunters need to be respectful. A quality land owner should be rewarded to keep them. The land owners pulling farming stunts and mowing everything walk in after opening week ends etc. should be no longer allowed to enroll. This may have already changed since I was in ND. And I don't know what happens in other states, but I hear similar comments on the site from time to time. And it seems if this is better addressed it would settle both the public and the owner down. And provide great hunting experiences and quality habitat. So, we can pay more for less but quality, and slightly more for the public option. Pay "Nothing"!!! for those owners who abuse the payment them selves.
It is about getting quality land owners, just as hunters need to be respectful. A quality land owner should be rewarded to keep them. The land owners pulling farming stunts and mowing everything walk in after opening week ends etc. should be no longer allowed to enroll. This may have already changed since I was in ND. And I don't know what happens in other states, but I hear similar comments on the site from time to time. And it seems if this is better addressed it would settle both the public and the owner down. And provide great hunting experiences and quality habitat. So, we can pay more for less but quality, and slightly more for the public option. Pay "Nothing"!!! for those owners who abuse the payment them selves.
Springer,
You just pointed to the irony that is CRP. I have a CRP contract that re quires that I mow and bale it once in the life of the contract. I also have to remove the bales and burn it with a government official present. They are going to cost share that process. Think about that. The U.S. is going to borrow money from China to cost share me removing vegitation from CRP and burning it so I can put more carbon in the air. I would gladly just feed it to my cows and save the U.S. taxpayers some money. I assume there is someone out there that would be offended because I might be getting too much value out of my CRP.
You just pointed to the irony that is CRP. I have a CRP contract that re quires that I mow and bale it once in the life of the contract. I also have to remove the bales and burn it with a government official present. They are going to cost share that process. Think about that. The U.S. is going to borrow money from China to cost share me removing vegitation from CRP and burning it so I can put more carbon in the air. I would gladly just feed it to my cows and save the U.S. taxpayers some money. I assume there is someone out there that would be offended because I might be getting too much value out of my CRP.
captaincoot
Banned
In my crp I could get 25 dollars my for public hunting but I would have to have a road to it at my expense. I would think asking me would be easier everyone I know with crp lets me hunt if they don't have family or friends going to hunt that day. I'll do the same Blackclouds a no for life type of person
I got to plug a tile that drains the slough on my crp I have a backhoe and was going to do it for free:thumbsup:. usda said I have to have a gov't certified tiler do it. USDA put in cost of project at 6500 dollars to put in 50 ft of 8 inch solid tile Common sense would go along ways in helping crp programs.
Blackclouds a no for life type of personI got to plug a tile that drains the slough on my crp I have a backhoe and was going to do it for free:thumbsup:. usda said I have to have a gov't certified tiler do it. USDA put in cost of project at 6500 dollars to put in 50 ft of 8 inch solid tile
Common sense would go along ways in helping crp programs.
FCSpringer
Moderator
I do understand there is problems. Weed controll could also be controlled by spray and cost more toward the fed side. I think there is a bunch of mismanaged funds in many programs, and thats why I also mentioned they could use some easy reform. Mowing a weed patch is one thing, baling the whole thing is another. Their can easily be management practices in place to address this issue. And in a long term program It does seem controlled burn is beneficial. I am saying separate programs better. Some like yourself may need a program set a side for grazing hay and water shed, also providing nesting cover that can be baled, no Public no Real development other then letting the grasses grow with out tilling etc. once a good grazing crop is in that also provides nesting for waterfowl and upland game it has to stay untouched until primary nesting is over. Then allow grazing, or baling to the farmer. And iron out who pays for weed control, If you get the benefit from bales and pasture U should cover that end. There also could be CRP that is paid more and has the improved wild life cover planted and possibly a water area as well, what ever seems the most beneficial to that particular land, in a long term program, that has fed influence on controlled burns and spraying large problem areas. Small problems can be addressed with weed control mowing. Some of this if paid better should be the land owners duty. He is getting paid a good price compared to rent in the region. And as said a few more dollars either matching rent or beating it for the public hunting option. Yes it would take the people running things to do their homework and common sense to make it work, but there is no reason it should not be even remotely possible.
fsentkilr
Active member
Mowing it is more for controlling trees than weeds. We mow ours when we are required with a bushog and mow it as high as we can right after primary nesting season. This still leaves cover for the birds as well as mowing down the trees. The problem with spraying, is besides killing the noxious weeds like serecea, the spray will also kill all the beneficial forbes such as illinois bundleflower ect. that the birds feed on. The govt. cost shared adding these forbs in the seeding so it is counterproductive to spray and kill them. As for the landowner mowing and still collecting on WIHA the state should put a stop to that. Something else all of us upland hunters need to remember, there are other hunters (such as mule deer) that use the WIHA areas also, and the type of terrain for them may not be the same as for upland birds. I know in Kansas many newly seeded wheat fields are enrolled for the purpose of shooting geese. Most of these are around the big lakes or wetland areas.
Coot
Common sense in the bowles of the federal beaurocracy is going to be hard to find. There is very little hands on experience and they are told what to do by legislators who have little experience have have been lobbied by who knows who who probably has a single purpose agenda.
Common sense in the bowles of the federal beaurocracy is going to be hard to find. There is very little hands on experience and they are told what to do by legislators who have little experience have have been lobbied by who knows who who probably has a single purpose agenda.
Downtown Bang!
Member
I have not read all the posts in the thread but will throw in some comments anyway.
Farm policy over the last 40-years has been generally one sided and aimed at encouraging (often by subsidy) maximum productivity. The result has often been supply over reaching demand and an artificially cheap food supply. Many find this to be a good result.
This policy has also created unintended consequences such as artificially high land prices and what economists would call externalities. An externality can be described as a cost not born by the producer that is not factored into the cost benefit analysis of production but is ultimately paid for by others. A very simple example of this would be Air Pollution.
Current farm practices create a lot of externalities. Unnaturally large storm water run off and resulting floods. Large scale soil erosion that degrades waterways, fills lakes & reservoirs, effects shipping etc. Flushing of chemicals and chemical nutrients into already degraded waterways and ultimately into the oceans. Large scale destruction of wetland habitats. Loss of plant and animal diversity in upland habitats. The list could go on for a while.
When you create that many costs someone has to pay the piper. Although not originally created for that purpose CRP does a great job (could even be better) minimizing the effects of the above externalities and honestly does it very effeciently.
As much as many detest the idea of paying someone to "do the right thing" that economic incentive must be there or the costs will be paid in other ways. Much higher food prices if farm policy is drastically changed. Or the path we are currently on with, continued soil erosion, poor water quality, loss of envornmental diversity, flooding. You get the idea.
As for the idea that booming populations outside our borders has to result in more local farm productivity. I call bull$hit! Other than Big Ag and Big Ag supporters in Washington who really feels the USA is obligated to feed the world? Especially when it would be done at the cost of our own land and our own environment. A huge paradigm shift has to take place here. The US needs to focus on exporting agri-business knowledge, improved seeds, responsible chemicals and farm machinery. Not bushels of corn that will more likely be used to create a hamburger for the middle class chinese than feed a starving refugee.
To address the original premise of the thread. I don't agree with any federal CRP dollars being used to purchase access to private property. IMO it is up to us as hunters to fund that privilage. We need to take responsibility for preserving our own sport and our own heritage. When it comes to access we need to get rid of the entitlement attitude. We need to stop pi$$ing and moaning about every license increase and find a way to step up and pay our way.
DB
Farm policy over the last 40-years has been generally one sided and aimed at encouraging (often by subsidy) maximum productivity. The result has often been supply over reaching demand and an artificially cheap food supply. Many find this to be a good result.
This policy has also created unintended consequences such as artificially high land prices and what economists would call externalities. An externality can be described as a cost not born by the producer that is not factored into the cost benefit analysis of production but is ultimately paid for by others. A very simple example of this would be Air Pollution.
Current farm practices create a lot of externalities. Unnaturally large storm water run off and resulting floods. Large scale soil erosion that degrades waterways, fills lakes & reservoirs, effects shipping etc. Flushing of chemicals and chemical nutrients into already degraded waterways and ultimately into the oceans. Large scale destruction of wetland habitats. Loss of plant and animal diversity in upland habitats. The list could go on for a while.
When you create that many costs someone has to pay the piper. Although not originally created for that purpose CRP does a great job (could even be better) minimizing the effects of the above externalities and honestly does it very effeciently.
As much as many detest the idea of paying someone to "do the right thing" that economic incentive must be there or the costs will be paid in other ways. Much higher food prices if farm policy is drastically changed. Or the path we are currently on with, continued soil erosion, poor water quality, loss of envornmental diversity, flooding. You get the idea.
As for the idea that booming populations outside our borders has to result in more local farm productivity. I call bull$hit! Other than Big Ag and Big Ag supporters in Washington who really feels the USA is obligated to feed the world? Especially when it would be done at the cost of our own land and our own environment. A huge paradigm shift has to take place here. The US needs to focus on exporting agri-business knowledge, improved seeds, responsible chemicals and farm machinery. Not bushels of corn that will more likely be used to create a hamburger for the middle class chinese than feed a starving refugee.
To address the original premise of the thread. I don't agree with any federal CRP dollars being used to purchase access to private property. IMO it is up to us as hunters to fund that privilage. We need to take responsibility for preserving our own sport and our own heritage. When it comes to access we need to get rid of the entitlement attitude. We need to stop pi$$ing and moaning about every license increase and find a way to step up and pay our way.
DB
wesslpointer
New member
Please explain
Are you saying if a farmer opes out of crp to make more money farming his land it's bad? If U S A farmers export more food thus the fed gov does not half to borrow more money from china to pay the farm subsidies that's bad also?
Are you saying if a farmer opes out of crp to make more money farming his land it's bad? If U S A farmers export more food thus the fed gov does not half to borrow more money from china to pay the farm subsidies that's bad also?