Should CRP, CREP and other program $$ require public access?

[UGUIDE]

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

Well said DB. Obviously we have environmental issue to be solved and CRP doies not create them it helps to address them. One of the latest issues being worked on is the rapid decline of pollinators of which pollinators contribute 14-16 Billion to Ag industry. So if CRP does not cause environemental issues then who does? Big Ag? Access can be an additional feature of CRP but why would a non-hunting taxpayer want to help fund the access cost for the hunting taxpayer?

 

[fsentkilr]

It wouldn't be just the non-hunting taxpayer be paying for access for hunters but so would the anti hunter. By that I mean those who are absolutely against hunting. CRP wasn't meant to be a program to provide ground for people to hunt on. That isn't the purpose of CRP. It is the federal government renting environmentally sensiteve acres and planting them to permanent cover. Cleaner water, less soil erosion, wildlife cover, and preserving some of these fragile acres for future use to grow crops when we need them worse than we do now are some of the purposes. As a hunter if you want to have ground to hunt on get out your checkbook and buy some, or lease the hunting rights to some. If you don't have the resources or desire to do that, then thats what WIHA and government owned lands are for.

 

[moellermd]

So if CRP does not cause environemental issues then who does? Big Ag?

That evil big Ag. How dare they try to make a profit and feed people for cheap. They screw everything up. Tomorrow instead of hauling 1000 bushels to town with the big truck tomorrow I will hook up a 250 bushel gravity wagon to the 4010 and head on out.

 

[moellermd]

Unnaturally large storm water run off and resulting floods. Large scale soil erosion that degrades waterways, fills lakes & reservoirs, effects shipping etc.

All of these issues you bring up have an economic impact on producers. If we lose top soil we lose money. If waterways and ditches erode in we lose money. Producers all ready have an economic incentive to take car of the land.

 

[Downtown Bang!]

All of these issues you bring up have an economic impact on producers. If we lose top soil we lose money. If waterways and ditches erode in we lose money. Producers all ready have an economic incentive to take car of the land.

Sure. Producers (farmers) will eventually realize economic consequences in the long run. In the meantime everyone else downstream will continue to pay know and then once the soil is "worn out" will pay in the future too.

Markets have been altered to the point that the vast majority of farmers can't properly weigh short-term benefits vs. long-term costs. It's that screwed up and it is not sustainable.

For the record when the words Big Ag are used it is not reference to farmers. It is a reference to companies like Cargill, ADM, Staley etc. who lobby for and enable the current system.

Who benefits the most when the average input price for corn production soars above $400 per acre and more and more acres go into production everyday? Big Ag.

Who doesn't currently and in the future will not bear any of the short-term and long-term costs mentioned above? Big Ag.

 

[moellermd]

DB, everyone likes to throw around this term of "big Ag" and then complain about modern farming practices. The reason modern farming practices are used is because they are efficient. I know some guys do a crappy job of farming and drain wet lands, farm crap that should not be farmed but for the most part every producer I now cares about the long term sustainability of the ground. Big Ag was a term invented buy groups of environmentalists who wanted to blame someone other than farms for not growing livestock free range and for using chemicals. Look at what the inventors of this term think is "sustainable" and then ask yourself what food prices would be.

The best part of this "Big Ag" phrase they coined is that it has worked for them. The average person believes that the majority of farms are owned by these big corporations. When in fact well over 90% of farms are family owned and operated. It is unpopular to blame farmers so they invented this term that allows them to blame farmers while removing the face.

Every industry has out side factors effecting market prices. You bet the current Ag policy drives up prices, ethonal and CRP included.

The best thing that could be done if my simple in mine is reform the crop insurance part of things. Prevent plant gets more than any ag policy I have seen.

 

[VZWman]

The best thing that could be done if my simple in mine is reform the crop insurance part of things. Prevent plant gets more than any ag policy I have seen.

Moeller, This is actually a brilliant plan. I think you could hack it in D.C. if you wanted, just not sure if that schedule would cut in to your hunting season, but I know Tom Harkin was in Pleasantville to get some lobbying time with several big lobbyists at a preserve this fall.

 

[UGUIDE]

Look at what the inventors of this term think is "sustainable" and then ask yourself what food prices would be.

What I take issue with is when a large seed or herbicide compay uses the term "sustainable" in reference to "sustaining" the maximum yield per acre without really being "accountable" to the downstream affects of trying to accomplish and "sustain" this output. You can see it in their marketing campaigns who who they are trying to appeal to (the big producer or the farmer looking for bigger production).

We have to ask ourselves what might the true definition of sustainablity in agriculture might be?

At Pheasant Fest I met a person who grew up on the farm who works in Washington DC now for the FSA. He also thinks that most farmers are concerned about the production of their ground. I believe most farmers are concerned about sustaining thier production and cashflows.....and then about the productivity or their soils.

As soon as he said this I became concerned about the value he put on conservation since he already believed most were good guys and doing it.

Then I wondered why we still had issues like the dead zone in the gulf and seasonal flooding in places like the Red River Valley?

Wouldn't we agree that most landowners concerns end at their property lines?

If this is true then we would need a larger body to manage the downstream issues of what comes across the property line. The way I see it we all live in a watershed with somebody else. If we don't like the taste or color of our water we'd better collaborate with our neighbor on what we are going to do about it.

 

[FCSpringer]

It's hard to believe the %age on here that think the farms should cater to them. I wonder how many have actualy lifted a fingure to help one of those farmers to hunt.
Now what Chris just said I can see plenty of room for improvement as well in sth MN and IA where I grew up. They have such nice ground it gets farmed fence to fence no if ands or buts. Some even take down groves. My relitives included. I have one cousin that put in some filter strips that are beautiful, but the rest don't do squat. And that goes on for mile after dirt mile. And so does the tile. CRP doesn't pay for them.....

 

[mnmthunting]

I suppose the majority of pheasant hunters don't own land, that's why the percentage.
Property owners should retain all rights.
Still, fact is the vast majority of pheasants are produced on private property.

 

[moellermd]

Wouldn't we agree that most landowners concerns end at their property lines?

If this is true then we would need a larger body to manage the downstream issues of what comes across the property line. The way I see it we all live in a watershed with somebody else. If we don't like the taste or color of our water we'd better collaborate with our neighbor on what we are going to do about it.

I would agree with you Chris on the issue of tiling/ditching for the most part. The water has to go some were. This is an issue FSA could solve. They are the ones that give permission to tile and ditch. One guy will so no you can't touch that wet spot and his replacement says go for it. I have seen that several times in my area.

Now what Chris just said I can see plenty of room for improvement as well in sth MN and IA where I grew up. They have such nice ground it gets farmed fence to fence no if ands or buts. Some even take down groves. My relitives included. I have one cousin that put in some filter strips that are beautiful, but the rest don't do squat. And that goes on for mile after dirt mile. And so does the tile. CRP doesn't pay for them.....

I am not so sure that if a bought a nice piece of flat farm ground I would not farm it ditch to ditch. That's what pays the bills. I am looking at getting some ground and have determined that I need to find a piece that has unfarmable ground in it, slough, waterway etc. You would have to have a real passion for birds, and a bunch of extra money, to not farm ground that could be farmed.

 

[UGUIDE]

You would have to have a real passion for birds, and a bunch of extra money, to not farm ground that could be farmed.

I agree and that is why this is a tough battle. Sustainability should be the balance struck. There is a cost when the chemicals applied to private ground leach into the public system downstream somewhere. That is just one example. There are costs incurred by the public outside the landowners fencelines and I think USDA programs attempt to address some of these in a fair way. We don't all agree on what these things are like "what will we pay for clean water and how clean do we want it to be."

Lots of unknowns out there where folks just look the other way but I think it always catches up with us in the end.

 

[M. R. Byrd]

You would have to have a real passion for birds, and a bunch of extra money, to not farm ground that could be farmed.

How about two out of three? I don't have a bunch of extra money, but for the last twenty-five years have purposely left ground for the birds that produced no income from any sources, but did indeed cost a fair chunk of money. Yes, I am crazy about the birds!

 

[captaincoot]

If the gov't would use the flood control right the impack on populated areas would be much less. Keep the reseviors low so you can control water levels better. Look at the area development has paved, look at the flood plains that have been filled in. Farmers are not the only ones to blame.

 

[Shadow]

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.

well said- hats off to you

 

[FCSpringer]

M, thats what I mean exactly by bringing that up. There will take special programs in these areas or forget it. I can't get my uncle to leave any cover on his fence line, and I offered his bushel price in return. Nth IA. But now that I have part of the farm, things will change....:thumbsup: Theres a new sheriff in town. one thing about that ground too is it will grow the best dang switch grass as well.

 

[tmrichardson]

deleted deleted

 

[moellermd]

I'd settle for leaving the most productive ground with minimal erosion problems to fence-row to fence-row farming if the more marginal ground had more cover.

Whats a fence? Take out the fence and you can get another row in.

 

[FCSpringer]

I'd settle for leaving the most productive ground with minimal erosion problems to fence-row to fence-row farming if the more marginal ground had more cover. Hard to make the argument that you are feeding the country when so much of it ends up in corn that heads to the ethanol mill--ever harder when you get paid for farming something that brings up a good crop only every so often and contributes to erosion/flooding problems.

This is exactly why some areas will never have pheasant hunting. Too bad for future generations. There is no marginal ground in a big chunk of theses two states. When there was birds like crazy, there was a low area
not tiled and would have cover. The fences were in and dirty with tall hemp plants, barn weed etc. It made beautiful cover and walking. With the chemical and practice these days it's darn clean let's say. We need to dirty it back up again. Plant filter strips on all dredge ditches so people down stream don't suffer from our actions(meaning my family). Road sides for wild life in these areas. Shrub and cover strips instead of fences etc. these are the things this area could use and get some program incentive for. It is proven that just these small things in NTh IA and Sth MN will do wonders and provide ample hunting opportunity's for many people. And yes walking a ditch down there is excepted practice by all.

 

[wesslpointer]

I'd settle for leaving the most productive ground with minimal erosion problems to fence-row to fence-row farming if the more marginal ground had more cover. Hard to make the argument that you are feeding the country when so much of it ends up in corn that heads to the ethanol mill--ever harder when you get paid for farming something that brings up a good crop only every so often and contributes to erosion/flooding problems.

Are not a lot of farm erosion problems caused by wind and rain when the crop grown is bare? Wouldn'T a winter cover crop do the most good in reducing these erosion problems?