How much has Iowa spent on CRP ?
When do we start the push for change?
- Thread starter GetTothePoint
- Start date
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
I will stand by my statements that Kansas has done a horrible job of setting and managing deer regulations. And I will also stand by my statements that upland game habitat falls mostly on private land owners and that the federal gov't should set aside incentives for landowners to put back a small portion of land to conservation. Deer management has trickled down to effect all forms of hunting be it upland or waterfowl. That is not attacking NR hunters and that is not attacking land owners or farmers. If someone wants to interpret that as an "attack", I just can't do anything but laugh.
Last edited:
It’s actually federal dollars spent in Iowa. See attached. I didn’t add it up, but for just 3 years in the 1990’s. They spent over $181,000,000 each year. Even at 10,000 an acre, we could have set aside 9,000 acres PERMANENTLY, and set up a fund of $90,000,000 to manage and improve it. AND THATS ONLY 1 YEAR. it wouldn’t matter what future funding would be. We would have that land, and a fund to draw from to permanently manage It. If we continue to rely on dishonest politicians, we will get screwed. Always.
Attachments
Actually the last couple years it was almost $400,000,000 a year. That’s over $ 1,000,000,000 in just 3 years. Think of the wildlife we could have supported with permanent ground and management with $1,000,000,000. Now if Biden cancels all CRP, we will be right back where we started. What a waste.
Attachments
But you would need a totally different program, that isn’t the purpose of CRP.
As to Biden doing anything with CRP, you need to look at which Senators are calling for the use of it.
As to Biden doing anything with CRP, you need to look at which Senators are calling for the use of it.
“The long-term goal of the program is to re-establish valuable land cover to help improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat.” If You really want to reduce loss of wildlife habitat, end CRP. Put the money in long term purchase and management. CRP is a failure.
From the USDA :
”The Food Security Act of 1985 was enacted December 23, 1985. The Act directed the Department of Agriculture to enroll 40 to 45 million acres by 1990 with two primary goals: reducing soil erosion on highly erodible cropland and curbing the production of surplus commodities. Secondary objectives included protecting the Nation's long-run capability to produce food and fiber, improving water quality, fostering wildlife habitat, and providing income support for farmers.”
The government owning more land I think would be a big no.
The CRP is a farmland reserve program, as “we might need this someday, let’s protect it”.
This Ukrainian thing might get pretty nasty if folks start going hungry in Europe. Problem is we have to anticipate months in advance, by the time they are hungry it’s too late to produce. Mother Nature has the last word as always.
”The Food Security Act of 1985 was enacted December 23, 1985. The Act directed the Department of Agriculture to enroll 40 to 45 million acres by 1990 with two primary goals: reducing soil erosion on highly erodible cropland and curbing the production of surplus commodities. Secondary objectives included protecting the Nation's long-run capability to produce food and fiber, improving water quality, fostering wildlife habitat, and providing income support for farmers.”
The government owning more land I think would be a big no.
The CRP is a farmland reserve program, as “we might need this someday, let’s protect it”.
This Ukrainian thing might get pretty nasty if folks start going hungry in Europe. Problem is we have to anticipate months in advance, by the time they are hungry it’s too late to produce. Mother Nature has the last word as always.
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
When enrollment was high, we had a lot pheasants. Landscape has changed drastically from what it was in the 60's, 70,s, and early 80's. Without CRP, where would pheasant populations be? Shelter belts, old homesteads, weedy patches, and grassy draws are gone. A friend of mine used to be the upland game biologist. I talk with him on occasion and hunt his ground. I just look at the way he farms his ground and dream of days when everyone manages land as he does.
I can sympathize, but the day when everyone manages like your friend will never come. some are conscientious and wildlife centered like your friend. Most are not. You make my argument for me when you call out falling enrollment and loss of habitat. Because it points out what hunter 94 identifies as the problem. CRP is temporary. Once the land comes out, all benefits will vanish. buying and managing is PERMANENT. The benefits accumulate year after year. my Point is this. If we want a program with some benefits for wildlife, buy and manage. Over time it will be much more successful for wildlife.
We are getting a ways off the original intent of the thread but allow me one more observation.
The CRP program is functioning as intended. Wildlife habitat is listed fifth of six objectives in the USDA excerpt I posted above, in the secondary category. It isn’t meant to be permanent. It is a reserve meant to be used when needed, maybe that is now, I don’t know.
Folks are exactly right that purchasing land results in permanent habitat, but that can’t be used to fault the CRP program. The CRP program has done what it was designed to do, because it doesn’t do what various folks want it to do isn’t a fault of the program.
The state buys farm ground around here, conservation groups buy land around here, those result in permanent habitat; and for the most part public use, but not always. In addition the NRCS has a permanent conservation easement program available. We explored that on some family land but the taxes made it very unattractive. several farms near me are in that program. The land is private but can not be used for anything other than habitat. Basically they sold it to the federal government and get help in restoring it, but keep all the access to it, and pay property taxes. They can also rent it out or sell it subject to the easement. It’s pretty lucrative in some situations.
Anyway, it doesn’t make sense to fault a program for doing what it was intended to do.
The CRP program is functioning as intended. Wildlife habitat is listed fifth of six objectives in the USDA excerpt I posted above, in the secondary category. It isn’t meant to be permanent. It is a reserve meant to be used when needed, maybe that is now, I don’t know.
Folks are exactly right that purchasing land results in permanent habitat, but that can’t be used to fault the CRP program. The CRP program has done what it was designed to do, because it doesn’t do what various folks want it to do isn’t a fault of the program.
The state buys farm ground around here, conservation groups buy land around here, those result in permanent habitat; and for the most part public use, but not always. In addition the NRCS has a permanent conservation easement program available. We explored that on some family land but the taxes made it very unattractive. several farms near me are in that program. The land is private but can not be used for anything other than habitat. Basically they sold it to the federal government and get help in restoring it, but keep all the access to it, and pay property taxes. They can also rent it out or sell it subject to the easement. It’s pretty lucrative in some situations.
Anyway, it doesn’t make sense to fault a program for doing what it was intended to do.
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
The state doesn't buy much land at all in Kansas. We rank about last in the U.S. KDWP holds title to about 65,000 acres with 14,000 being the minded land area way outside the pheasant range. I am not sure what they paid for that mined land but in the early 1980's you could by that land for under a $100 per acre. You can't touch it now for less than $3000 per acre.
Folks often complain about government involvement and restrictions but realistically greed, excessive consumption and abuse tend to rule out with out regs and or controls.
Maybe getting down to a more local level landowners could be incentivized to maintain more set aside habitat with the aid of county tax reductions per acre set aside. That would be something that could be voted on in local elections and might help especially if it was combined with state and federal programs. It seems there are more and more folks in the general population who tend to support wildlife enhancement projects.
Maybe getting down to a more local level landowners could be incentivized to maintain more set aside habitat with the aid of county tax reductions per acre set aside. That would be something that could be voted on in local elections and might help especially if it was combined with state and federal programs. It seems there are more and more folks in the general population who tend to support wildlife enhancement projects.
I’m sorry mcFarmer. I don’t think CRP met either primary goal well. Because as soon as the land comes out of the program, the benefits evaporate. And we have to start over.
“two primary goals: reducing soil erosion on highly erodible cropland and curbing the production of surplus commodities.”
“two primary goals: reducing soil erosion on highly erodible cropland and curbing the production of surplus commodities.”
westksbowhunter
Well-known member
That happens with double cropping, constant burning of the Flint hills, over grazing, etc. If it weren't for crp, we might not have huntable numbers.
spot on, we need to start spending funds on permanent easements. eventually it will accumulate by plan.
Don’t know what you base that on.
If erosion doesn’t happen for ten years it doesn’t happen, and if it doesn’t raise a crop for ten years it doesn’t raise a crop. Seems like if a piece is in grass for ten years both are accomplished.
I’m thinking maybe some folks just don’t like seeing money spent on it.
coulda, shouda, woulda, that would take an entirely different mindset. honestly, hunting means very little to the state, only to us hunters.
Last edited: