Sodsaver Legislation

1pheas4 said:
Here's a little good news in the midst of so much bad new regarding CRP.

This is an article about the Sodsaver program Pheasants Forever and other conservation groups are pushing.

http://www.pheasantsforever.org/page/1/PressReleaseViewer.jsp?pressReleaseId=118700
Click to expand...

The last time they tried that thousands of acres of praire was converted to farmland as a result of that effort. I know of one operation that broke up 30 quarters of pasture because of the sodsaver provision. So if you want a bunch more native praire broke up just keep pushing things like that.
 
haymaker said:
The last time they tried that thousands of acres of praire was converted to farmland as a result of that effort. I know of one operation that broke up 30 quarters of pasture because of the sodsaver provision. So if you want a bunch more native praire broke up just keep pushing things like that.
Click to expand...



Well, God know that last thing we need is something destructive to grasslands.:(

Haymaker, do you mind going giving more detail about Sodsaver so we have a better understanding as you do?

Thanks for any help to better understand;):) --I'll have the mods delete this thread. Sorry, I didn't know.
 
Last edited:
1pheas4 said:
Well, God know that last thing we need is something destructive to grasslands.:(

Haymaker, do you mind going giving more detail about Sodsaver so we have a better understanding as you do?

Thanks for any help to better understand;):) --I'll have the mods delete this thread. Sorry, I didn't know.
Click to expand...

This bill may be better but the last time they tried this, land was broke up in anticipation of it. I broke up a quarter myself. This is long and complicated but I will try to keep it simple. In the case of the old bill the land that would have been kept from being farmed would have been worth maybe a third of what was farmed. With land values in my area as they are that would be a $300,000 hit per quarter in your net worth. Not many people want to sacrifice that much money, so they break up land that they may not have planned to so that they can protect their future investment. I have 800 acres of native pasture that I want to leave that way. I would stand to lose $1,600,000 if Pheasants Forever has it's way. Or I can quick kill it and turn it into farmland if PF makes me. What would you do if you were me?
 
1pheas4 said:
Can a mod delete this thread please. Thank you!

--Nick
Click to expand...
Why have them delete this thread? It'd be better left so others know that the Sodsaver program isn't necessarily as good of a thing as first impressions might make some think.
 
1GB said:
Why have them delete this thread? It'd be better left so others know that the Sodsaver program isn't necessarily as good of a thing as first impressions might make some think.
Click to expand...

Good point. I'll leave it alone.

Thanks for your input GB.;)
 
Last edited:
The reasons grassland/pastureland and hayland is being converted to crops [some 25 million acres] It's corn ethanol, and government programs. Folks are raising 200 bushel corn @ $6 and STILL getting gov payments. :rolleyes: Same for wheat and other crops.
Part of the sod saver bill would be to eliminate gov payment on sod busted ground.
 
mnmthunting said:
The reasons grassland/pastureland and hayland is being converted to crops [some 25 million acres] It's corn ethanol, and government programs. Folks are raising 200 bushel corn @ $6 and STILL getting gov payments. :rolleyes: Same for wheat and other crops.
Part of the sod saver bill would be to eliminate gov payment on sod busted ground.
Click to expand...

200 bushel corn on pastureland?......i wanna see that!
 
I am glad that everyones problems will soon be solved. Corn is in the $4s more often the $5s for new crop. Ethonal subsidies are gone along with direct payments in the new farm bill. Surely we will soon see bird numbers like we have never seen before now that the great evils of pheasant hunting are going by the way side.


If Monsanto has a dryland corn variety that will yield 200 I will take a semi-load.
 
moellermd said:
I am glad that everyones problems will soon be solved. Corn is in the $4s more often the $5s for new crop. Ethonal subsidies are gone along with direct payments in the new farm bill. Surely we will soon see bird numbers like we have never seen before now that the great evils of pheasant hunting are going by the way side.


If Monsanto has a dryland corn variety that will yield 200 I will take a semi-load.
Click to expand...

Nah. Those hedge rows and fence lines that once linked what habitats are left are gone forever. Farmers aren't going to say to themselves "corn prices have dropped, I think I'll put those hedge rows back in place".

Damage is done. There gone.
 
Last edited:
1pheas4 said:
Nah. Those hedge rows and fence lines that once linked what habitats are left are gone forever. Farmers aren't going to say to themselves "corn prices have dropped, I think I'll put those hedge rows back in place".

Damage is done. There gone.
Click to expand...

The farmer won't have to bring back the hedgerows or the field edges. They will get the government to subsidize the effort. You know all those osage oranges, and shelter belts, that the government paid for in 1930's, with your dollars. It's a shame we can't just subsidize now! It will be a lot more expensive to fix it later.
 
1pheas4 said:
Nah. Those hedge rows and fence lines that once linked what habitats are left are gone forever. Farmers aren't going to say to themselves "corn prices have dropped, I think I'll put those hedge rows back in place".

Damage is done. There gone.
Click to expand...

Whats even better is that with the end of direct payments, that everyone thought was the death of pheasant numbers, there will be no penalty for draining wetlands. Before farmers could get kicked out of the farm program and loose the direct payments, no penalty is included in the new farm bill. Most conservation groups would love to have the old farm program with its direct payments back.
 
moellermd said:
Whats even better is that with the end of direct payments, that everyone thought was the death of pheasant numbers, there will be no penalty for draining wetlands. Before farmers could get kicked out of the farm program and loose the direct payments, no penalty is included in the new farm bill. Most conservation groups would love to have the old farm program with its direct payments back.
Click to expand...

Unless by some foresighted/ excenteric/millioniares individual does conservation practices be cause they can! It takes dollars, and laws which have significant bite to have conservational effect at all. Period. I'm sorry to say. The goverment with some help from the economic, it is the only, outside source which can change the course. The associations are valuable, as a clarion call to galvinize supporters and persuances efforts to get the goverment to charter a different course.
 
This is a good thread! I learned a lot. Especially about affect on farmland values and how landowners perceive these edicts as real threats and risks to their livelihood. I passed some comments along to my PF biologist as he is in touch with folks at PF that help influence policy in Washington.

I could see how a bogus sod saver provision might satisfy ignorant voters/hunters (like me) and actually cause more harm than good.
 
UGUIDE said:
This is a good thread! I learned a lot. Especially about affect on farmland values and how landowners perceive these edicts as real threats and risks to their livelihood. I passed some comments along to my PF biologist as he is in touch with folks at PF that help influence policy in Washington.

I could see how a bogus sod saver provision might satisfy ignorant voters/hunters (like me) and actually cause more harm than good.
Click to expand...

If they would take the money that is being spent on lawyers and lobbyists and use it as an incentive to landowners of the land they want to protect I think it would be more effective. The last time they tried this I talked to the highest person in DU that I could about the effect on landowners and the backlash that it was creating. He said he was well aware of it and did not seem to care. I have not read the new version so it may be better and I believe the intentions are good, just not aware of the unintended consequences.
 
Last edited:
haymaker said:
If they would take the money that is being spent on lawyers and lobbyists and use it as an incentive to landowners of the land they want to protect I think it would be more effective.
Click to expand...

Ideally you are correct and this would be the ultimate desired outcome. Unfortunately there just is not enough funding coming into these orgs to match the $ gov't conservation programs can generate trough tax $. (or in our modern American case--through printing $:D)

Much of the work these orgs do is through the help of dollars matched through gov't programs. For example, a PF or Du chapter raises $1, the gov't will match it with $3-$4. --again, amount is an example.

With that kind of $, projects can happen. Without it, that is, using PF/DU funds solely, there just simply is not enough for widespread projects.

As O&N basically stated, at this time help from the gov't is our only way out of this particular issue.
 
FSA is closing down it's offices in town, been there forever.
Producers will go 40 miles and farther to the next county for services.
Good thing I think.:thumbsup:
Don't think much of the greed that goes on up here. Crp land that was put into trees etc wildlife habitat is back into corn, potatoes. Being ripped out by the thousands of acres. 30-40 year old Red Pine plantations wind rowed and burned and pivots put in. Corners are all planted now.

No wonder I'm so grouchy. :(
 
haymaker said:
If they would take the money that is being spent on lawyers and lobbyists and use it as an incentive to landowners of the land they want to protect I think it would be more effective. The last time they tried this I talked to the highest person in DU that I could about the effect on landowners and the backlash that it was creating. He said he was well aware of it and did not seem to care. I have not read the new version so it may be better and I believe the intentions are good, just not aware of the unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

well now, THAT really makes me want to continue supporting DU! :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top