Folks:

This may resonate with those of you who appreciate the outdoors and hunting. A call or email to our congress and senate offices can help.

The CRP program needs support from farmers and hunters alike. Here are the numbers per the agriculture bill 4-13-16.

Funding Cut - FY2017 - 451 million

Acreage 1985- 2008 39 million authorized
Acreage cut 2014 27.5 million
Acreage cut 2015 25 million
Acreage cut 2016 24 million

CRP land provides soil conservation, sustainable agriculture and better hunting experiences for all of us.

If 14 million hunters supported the program/$32 each, it would make up the 451 million shortfall. One tank of gas.

Info
www.sustainableagriculture.net

Thank you




Thank you.

Signing up for the CRP is an experience in itself. All of my land is within a quarter mile of a circuitous creek. I am required to always have a current highly erodible farming plan on file. And yet when I tried to enroll some land in the CRP, I was told it didn't meet the highly erodible land minimum requirement.

CRP is an incredibly important private lands program for the production of pheasants, sharp-tailed grouse, gray partridge, upland nesting waterfowl, turkeys, deer, and even sage-grouse.

It also does very important things for water quality and soil conservation.

I agree with Fourteener54... please engage your congressional rep and senators on this issue. Habitat is where its at!!!

Let me be contrarian for a moment.

Why should I have to pay you to not poison my water through your runoff?
Why should I have to pay you to protect wildlife for your private pleasure?

If there is a public access element, then we'll talk. Until then, I prefer my tax dollars be used to enforce the run off laws we already have.

Being endlessly told, "That's so and so's crp, we can't hunt that" wised me up on how it's being played.

I am paying for private game reserves.

CRP is a complicated issue. Lots of reasons why we've lost so much of it. Partly due to efforts to cut federal spending. Partly because a lot of farmers pulled out of it when they were able to do so--because, a few years ago, commodity prices (mainly corn, soybeans, and wheat) were very high. And they could make more growing crops than they got in a set-aside check from Uncle Sam.

Then there's the Renewable Fuels Mandate. Although there is no longer an ethanol subsidy as such, there is a requirement to produce so much ethanol to be blended with gasoline. And nearly all of that ethanol is made from corn.

Agree on the ag runoff (non-point source pollution) rules. Definitely need stricter enforcement. But although CRP acres overall are being reduced, the "permanent" CRP title--which includes stream buffers, and which allow most landowners with waterways that run through fields in which row crops are planted to establish CRP buffers--is open to continuous enrollment. Landowners receive more per acre for stream buffer CRP than they do for large field CRP.

If the Renewable Fuels Mandate is ever phased out--and it would make sense to do so given the price of oil and the potential for domestic oil production--you will see a HUGE push from the ag sector to turn CRP around and start adding acres rather than further reducing acres. As the ethanol industry stands today, if and when the Renewable Fuels Mandate goes away, corn prices will take a significant nosedive. And they are already very low compared to just a few years ago.

Public access to CRP won't happen. As a matter of fact, the only money landowners can make off CRP acres, in addition to their check from the govt, comes via charging for "recreational access" (like hunting and fishing). So if you have permission to hunt on CRP ground without paying for it, consider yourself lucky--because Farmer Jones could tell you "Sure you can hunt my farm. $100 per day per hunter."

Here in my Texas Panhandle county, checks are sent each year to China....they bought land here when the govt. started the CRP program and it's off limits to any hunters. Nope, ain't contributing to anything that limits access.

Some CRP is strictly private and other properties are open for hunting, just like any other property. All the surrounding country benefits from the birds raised on "private" CRP the same as on lands open to public shooting.

Texas may be a special case since so much of it is locked up for the benefit of private interests. Nevertheless the entire ecosystem benefits...Geo

I'm a little confused. I've been a participant before in CRP programs. CRP here mostly consists of longleaf pine "plantations". I did not renew my contract when it was offered to me last year because I wanted the right to sell baled pine straw off those acres, and it is forbidden if you are under contract in CRP. I took acres out of row crop production and abided by the rules and the government paid me $ per acre each year to do so, for the life of the contract. Just why should that entitle John Q. Public access to my, or anyone else's, privately owned land?

There is a little known program in Georgia that will furnish hatchery fingerlings to pond/lake owners, free of charge, if ........ they will sign an agreement to allow the public access to that pond/lake. Guess how many participate? No such stipulations are in CRP contracts, that I have ever heard of. If someone thinks there should be, they should lobby Washington to get it done, not accuse the landowners of "playing" the system.

SRH

Here in Montana we know how important residual grass structure is to most ground nesting birds. If eggs and chicks survive predation (and dense grass overstory is the most common correlate of nesting and brood success) then pheasant, grouse, and upland duck species thrive. If this happens to be CRP acreage where these bird produce best, their populations frequently overflow onto surrounding public lands or even distant wetlands (which are generally widely accessible to hunters). Farmers win, bird populations win, and hunters win, here in Montana anyway.

Spot on, Stan. There's also the fact that quite a few states with "walk-in" programs--public access to private land--encourage CRP by paying the landowner an additional fee, on top of the check he gets from DC, if he will allow public hunting. That gives the landowner a nice option if he does wish to participate in the walk-in program while giving him an extra incentive to keep his land in the CRP. But accepting CRP $ should not REQUIRE a landowner to permit public access.

I've heard that in some places (eg, Kansas) where public hunting is allowed as 'walk in' on privately held CRP, the landowners get a break on property taxes. Is there any truth to this?

You are correct Stan, you shouldn't be forced to make private land open to the public.
And of course, the public needn't pay private land owners to create private game reserves.
The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay "protection money" to private landowners for our environmental safety.

It's just the other side of the same coin.
There's nothing stopping a private landowner from planting erosion/filter strips to protect their private land.

Always hilarious to see a Liberal like CZ complaining about a redistribution of taxes that might actually do something besides piss money down a rathole and keep poor people on the Democrat Plantation.

I think they get a check.

But yes, in Kansas and Montana the game departments lease the hunting rights from some private land owners and make it public hunting. There is usually an upcharge when you buy your license for "walk-in" or "block management" privileges. But it is not always CRP. Oftentimes it is ranchland or croplands, say alfalfa or wheat stubble or milo.

Folks,

Wildlife Habitat, sustainable agriculture and erosion control isn't a political football unless you want to skew it that way.
Please try to remember the 1930's dust bowl images.

I have had great hunting experiences in KS where one section of CRP land held hundreds of pheasants. Birds do fly to public access hunting areas.

I never judged the farmer who didn't abide a few feet of hedgerow, left a row of corn unharvested or a fallow corner because optimizing crop was the bottom line. I was a visitor and a guest with an out of state license.

We are swimming in oil and natural gas. The ethanol subsidy is $5.5 Billion to $7.3 Billion/year. $3.80/gallon should be the price. It takes 3 Gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of ethanol.

Just imagine: A one percent reduction in corn subsidies would go back to farmers; corporate or private and still support hunters and sustainable agriculture.

I'd rather have the Ogallala aquifer with water left to grow sustainable crops. Just Say'in....

Some older folks may remember Jay Darling's conservation efforts and cartoons in the 30's. We may need another visionary to help the farmer and the hunter preserve something for future generations.

I am unwilling to pay protection money to farmers.

If a state chooses to lease land from private parties and make it available to the public, God bless both parties.

Don't hide behind a man made natural disaster from 80+ years ago as a vague threat that if we don't pay protection they'll starve us.

CRP is a wealth subsidy program for land owners.

Regardless of how it's spun, I think this is how someone would have to look at it. Spending has been on a sharp increase during the period when you see a decrease, maybe it reflects priority. I noticed the amount per hunter to restore the budget cut is about the price of an advocacy organization membership. Consider if it's sent to the decision makers, it'll be spent on something else that'll be sure to be great for the environment.

I completely disagree on that one. Delighted to have the CRP program in place and would love to see it grow. More CRP = more birds, public access is a great bonus which I'm happy to see the States pay for as well. It is where I hunt....I'm selfish.

If it weren't for CRP, our bird populations would crash...Much of our CRP is enrolled in the States Walk In Hunting Program...It is up to the Farmer Rancher as to whom he allows access. That's as it should be...

There aren't many people getting rich off of CRP payments.
In fact, it's often less than what the landowner would get if they chose to farm the property and they lose much of the control of the property for the length of the terms.
Or the payments get returned.
In the Great Lakes region, the lack of new enrollments(because you can only get in when it's offered) and the lack of renewals has virtually eliminated much of the quail and pheasant populations. And the opportunities to hunt them.
Sadly, I don't see the returns or benefits from many of these 'pop-up' 'Not-For-Profits'.
Mainly they profit a few employees and a few buddies.
You don't need a membership to make a phone call or send letters/email.
If you really want to get upset, I encourage you to look at the USDA budget.
Actual CRP payments are barely a blip on the radar.
Crop insurance is a much larger one.
Plenty gets sent right out of the country.
Roughly 75% goes to what most would call food stamp programs.
Plenty of little 'pork' programs as well.
Have a look... just remember that 1000 million is a billion....
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=budget2016.xml

Nobody is getting rich off of CRP payments.

CRP helps put game birds everywhere not just on the CRP land.

Instead of belly aching go buy some land.

+10

There are probably a million examples of taxpayer funded subsidies to businesses, and there are outright Welfare Programs for those who do not work. ClapperZapper told us just a couple days ago that he was employed working on the design of gear shift linkages for General Motors, Chrysler, and John Deere. GM is a mammoth corporation that has gotten untold subsidies, tax breaks, tax abatements, etc. Then there was that little multi-billion dollar bailout to "save" GM from liquidation. Tens of millions of dollars has not been paid back, and never will. Is it fair to assume that CZ has benefited financially, if indirectly, from taxpayer funded hand-outs to GM? Or perhaps the earlier bailout of Chrysler? What did all of you who never worked for GM get out of the deal to give tax dollars to a corporation that spent the last 30 years moving assets and jobs out of this country?

Buzz, the states with "walk-in" (or "PLOTS", or whatever they choose to call them) programs offer different incentives to landowners. In all cases, one way or another, if the ground is already in CRP and they're getting a check from Uncle Sam, they get a little "sweetener" on top of that from the state. Re tax breaks, the state of Michigan runs a very large program (unrelated to CRP)--used to be a couple million acres, almost all in the UP I believe--called Commercial Forest. In return for allowing public access for hunting, landowners do get a tax break. Those CF areas are not signed or anything like that. But unless you've got houses, fences, or active agriculture going on, if it's forest land in the UP and there aren't any no hunting/no trespassing signs, you can hunt it.

People who didn't live in serious farm country when CRP got started probably don't remember that more than anything, to start with, the program had a goal of taking marginal land out of crop production in order to reduce an oversupply of commodities which had resulted in very low prices. Farmers going broke, banks foreclosing on them etc. Yes, it was also of significant benefit to wildlife, but it also kept a lot of farmers from going under. Brought the price of corn and other grains back up by reducing supply. And in 3 years, Iowa's pheasant harvest doubled: from what was then an all time low of a little over 700,000 in 1984 to almost 1.5 million in 1987. Now? We'd be real happy to hit that 700,000 mark again.

Larry, a good start would be to get rid of Roundup Ready which eliminates row crop weeds and bugs.. Talking with a 50 year farmer In SW Iowa about 5 tears ago, he had not seen a grasshopper in 4 years.

Funny you should mention the hoppers Daryl. The places I hunt in SD, Reservation land, are teeming with hoppers. Thousands of them and nothing but native prairie grass and cows for as far as the eye can see. Something to be said for the old methods and keeping roundup far from our environment.

Well, it's not because of Roundup Ready crops. I plant RR corn, soybeans and cotton, and see hordes of grasshoppers some years. Some springs they are so bad we have to spray just emerged cotton to keep it from being completely wiped out by grasshoppers.

Take it from a lifelong farmer ....... Don't listen to everything every farmer says. If he implied that glysophate (Roundup) got rid of grasshoppers he is a nut.

SRH

I have had a very similar experience.

It is a goat rodeo.

No question the program has problems. Early on, here in Iowa, it was not unusual for entire farms to be enrolled in the program. They all had erodible land, but the whole farm? Not in many cases. But, on the other hand, those places sure grew a lot of pheasants!

When the program changed, under the 96 Farm Bill, it really made a lot more sense in terms of making erosion the target. Stream buffers have done quite a bit to improve water quality in Iowa. But those buffers, while better than nothing, aren't nearly as good as entire fields taken out of production, as far as wildlife is concerned.