CRP and posting requirements???

[JIGGIN']

Question- can a person legally enter unposted CRP grass to hunt?

Trying to settle a question with a buddy on this one.

[Eelpout08]

Im not positive, but i think technicaly you can, if it is not posted, or at least you can plead ignorance and not get in trouble, although if you know its private property and you enter anyway you may be out of luck. not to mention its very bad PR for hunters.

[CJH]

NO! Its still trespassing whether its posted or not. CRP land isn't public land, its private.

This is the type of stuff that, as mentioned, gives us all a bad name.

[grab the net]

Negative, CRP is considered agricultural and does not require it be posted. It is private property, claiming ignorance will only get you a ticket.

[scsavre]

This law is state to state, in MN you can NOT hunt posted or not, you would be trespassing.

[grousehunter]

Nope..not in MN or SD..but in ND you can.

[BucksnDucks]

unposted timber yes, ag land no! CRP falls under the classifaction of ag land

[croixflats]

NO! Its still trespassing whether its posted or not. CRP land isn't public land, its private.

This is the type of stuff that, as mentioned, gives us all a bad name.

That was a ruff response. Anyways it should be open after all we are paying for that CRP.

[Augusta]

Originally Posted By: CJH

NO! Its still trespassing whether its posted or not. CRP land isn't public land, its private.

This is the type of stuff that, as mentioned, gives us all a bad name.

That was a ruff response. Anyways it should be open after all we are paying for that CRP.

My sentiments exactly. We taxpayers have leased this land, why are we not allowed access to it? We taxpayers are funding allot of private hunting land. And now starts the firestorm......

[BucksnDucks]

I do agree totally with what you guys are sayn it is a slap in the tax payers face. CRP= Pay farmer good money for non-productive farm land that has always been jus that!

[croixflats]

Are not some of these CRP user's in the south creating game farms. Or is it that their CRP happens to be next to their game farm.Hmmmm.

[BobT]

I am not a participant in the CRP program but I thought I'd do a little digging. It appears that you are all correct that CRP is not automatically open to public use. However, contrary to popular belief a CRP contract is not just a lease agreement between the landowner and the Federal Government. The landowner is required to fulfill a number of responsibilities during the contract period. In other words, it's not free money as most that are not involved think it is.

Here's a quote from Title 7, Chapter 14, Part 1410 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If interested, this is only a small piece of the regulations involved and you can search for the Code of Regulations online and read further for your enjoyment.

Hope this helps clarify things a little.

Quote:

All participants subject to a CRP

contract must agree to:

(1) Carry out the terms and conditions

of such CRP contract;

(2) Implement the conservation plan,

which is part of such contract, in accordance

with the schedule of dates included

in such conservation plan unless

the Deputy Administrator determines

that the participant cannot fully implement

the conservation plan for reasons

beyond the participant’s control,

and CCC agrees to a modified plan.

However, a contract will not be terminated

for failure to establish an approved

vegetative or water cover on

the land if, as determined by the Deputy

Administrator:

(i) The failure to plant or establish

such cover was due to excessive rainfall,

flooding, or drought;

(ii) The land subject to the contract

on which the participant could practicably

plant or establish to such cover

is planted or established to such cover;

and

(iii) The land on which the participant

was unable to plant or establish

such cover is planted or established to

such cover after the wet or drought

conditions that prevented the planting

or establishment subside;

(3) Establish temporary vegetative

cover either when required by the conservation

plan or, as determined by the

Deputy Administrator, if the permanent

vegetative cover cannot be timely

established;

(4) Comply with part 12 of this title;

(5) Not allow grazing, harvesting, or

other commercial use of any crop from

the cropland subject to such contract

except for those periods of time approved

in accordance with instructions

issued by the Deputy Administrator;

(6) Establish and maintain the required

vegetative or water cover and

the required practices on the land subject

to such contract and take other

actions that may be required by CCC to

achieve the desired environmental benefits

and to maintain the productive

capability of the soil throughout the

contract period;

(7) Comply with noxious weed laws of

the applicable State or local jurisdiction

on such land;

(8) Control on land subject to such

contract all weeds, insects, pests and

other undesirable species to the extent

necessary to ensure that the establishment

and maintenance of the approved

cover as necessary or may be specified

in the CRP conservation plan and to

avoid an adverse impact on surrounding

land, taking into consideration

water quality, wildlife, and other

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:20 Feb 19, 2009 Jkt 217021 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\217021.XXX 217021 cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with CFR

416

§ 1410.21 7 CFR Ch. XIV (1–1–09 Edition)

needs, as determined by the Deputy

Administrator; and

(9) Be jointly and severally responsible,

if the participant has a share of

the payment greater than zero, with

the other contract participants in compliance

with the provisions of such contract

and the provisions of this part

and for any refunds or payment adjustments

that may be required for violations

of any of the terms and conditions

of the CRP contract and this

part.

[Augusta]

Bob, you are correct, the landowner does have to meet certain obligations, just like when I lease a vehicle from Ford or Chevy. Am I not required to met certain obligations there as well? Difference here is with the vehicle lease, I actually get to use it......unlike the CRP lease where I am not allowed to use it..I think that is the point that several are making. Just my 2 cents...

[CJH]

You are comparing apples to oranges. You get a higher bird populatin in your area due to the increase in habit, its not like you don't bennefit at all. Plus, if you lease a car you don't own it, this is private property!!!!!

I am pretty sure the payment doesn't cover the cost of the land or the property taxes that are owed on it. Essentially you are getting a tax break.

You get a tax break on your home, should everbody get come over and hang out since we are all paying for that?

Your logic doesn't hold water.

Glad you guys turned this into a political debate, there's not enough of that going around.

[MNUser]

Bob, you are correct, the landowner does have to meet certain obligations, just like when I lease a vehicle from Ford or Chevy. Am I not required to met certain obligations there as well? Difference here is with the vehicle lease, I actually get to use it......unlike the CRP lease where I am not allowed to use it..I think that is the point that several are making. Just my 2 cents...

Exactly! CRP should be open to the public since they DO NOT own the birds and their payments come from OUR tax dollars.

[BucksnDucks]

From my understanding, the only obligations a land owner has to fulfill his obligation is hes not allowed to plant crops, cuz the Feds are sick of bailing his butt out when he comes cryn for money cuz he didnt get his 180 bushel corn like his neighbor from this marginal land that was enrolled into crp. And I tell ya what, from what my uncle makes off his crp payment more than covers his tax on that land. And the cost of the land???? What cost of the land? You already own the darn land. And I tell ya what, if you dont own the land then why are you asking for a hand out to subsidize something that you dont even own? Im gunna go lease a truck and when the tires go bald will all you tax payers fork out the money so I can replace em? Sorry but ppl who think that the land owners recieving crp payments are not being fed with a silver spoon, you ppl need to open ur eyes!!

[croixflats]

I am not a participant in the CRP program but I thought I'd do a little digging. It appears that you are all correct that CRP is not automatically open to public use. However, contrary to popular belief a CRP contract is not just a lease agreement between the landowner and the Federal Government. The landowner is required to fulfill a number of responsibilities during the contract period. In other words, it's not free money as most that are not involved think it is.

Here's a quote from Title 7, Chapter 14, Part 1410 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If interested, this is only a small piece of the regulations involved and you can search for the Code of Regulations online and read further for your enjoyment.

Hope this helps clarify things a little.

Quote:

All participants subject to a CRP

contract must agree to:

(1) Carry out the terms and conditions

of such CRP contract;

(2) Implement the conservation plan,

which is part of such contract, in accordance

with the schedule of dates included

in such conservation plan unless

the Deputy Administrator determines

that the participant cannot fully implement

the conservation plan for reasons

beyond the participant&#146;s control,

and CCC agrees to a modified plan.

However, a contract will not be terminated

for failure to establish an approved

vegetative or water cover on

the land if, as determined by the Deputy

Administrator:

(i) The failure to plant or establish

such cover was due to excessive rainfall,

flooding, or drought;

(ii) The land subject to the contract

on which the participant could practicably

plant or establish to such cover

is planted or established to such cover;

and

(iii) The land on which the participant

was unable to plant or establish

such cover is planted or established to

such cover after the wet or drought

conditions that prevented the planting

or establishment subside;

(3) Establish temporary vegetative

cover either when required by the conservation

plan or, as determined by the

Deputy Administrator, if the permanent

vegetative cover cannot be timely

established;

(4) Comply with part 12 of this title;

(5) Not allow grazing, harvesting, or

other commercial use of any crop from

the cropland subject to such contract

except for those periods of time approved

in accordance with instructions

issued by the Deputy Administrator;

(6) Establish and maintain the required

vegetative or water cover and

the required practices on the land subject

to such contract and take other

actions that may be required by CCC to

achieve the desired environmental benefits

and to maintain the productive

capability of the soil throughout the

contract period;

(7) Comply with noxious weed laws of

the applicable State or local jurisdiction

on such land;

(8) Control on land subject to such

contract all weeds, insects, pests and

other undesirable species to the extent

necessary to ensure that the establishment

and maintenance of the approved

cover as necessary or may be specified

in the CRP conservation plan and to

avoid an adverse impact on surrounding

land, taking into consideration

water quality, wildlife, and other

VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:20 Feb 19, 2009 Jkt 217021 PO 00000 Frm 00425 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\217021.XXX 217021 price-sewell on PRODPC61 with CFR

416

§ 1410.21 7 CFR Ch. XIV (1&#150;1&#150;09 Edition)

needs, as determined by the Deputy

Administrator; and

(9) Be jointly and severally responsible,

if the participant has a share of

the payment greater than zero, with

the other contract participants in compliance

with the provisions of such contract

and the provisions of this part

and for any refunds or payment adjustments

that may be required for violations

of any of the terms and conditions

of the CRP contract and this

part.

Its how you look at it I guess. The Farmer gets paid rent, now I think that negates the taxes the farmer has to pay for that parcel of land. The government also helps in the cost of establishing shrubs and grasslands to what extent I dont know but it comes down to that money out of our coffers to help the farmers with the agricultural business witch in theory is a good concept. Though now some are converting valuable land over to CRP for what reason cheaper to rent it to the government than to cultivate it and with a benefit of having nature in your back yard you exclusively own by payment of the government. All you have to do is add a bit off sweat equity and a bit of cash, a fraction of the cost without the aid plus you still would have to pay taxes on that land. And like said you own it and you can keep it for your self at others expense.

This is the arguement that CRP should be open to the public in a non distructive manner

[CRAZYEYES]

I think we should have put the billions of dollars of payments into permanantly protecting land. Since the start of CRp can you imagine how may acres we could have out into permanent protection with access to the public. I think CRP waas a good idea but there was very little foresight because its only temporary and really does not benefit me unless I can get access to it. I just think that if public money goes into something the public should get something out of besides looking at animals standing next to a no trespassing sighn. I know there were other reasons behind CRP like raising grain prices and flood control but I don't like paying more for my groceries and I'm not dumb enough to live on a flood plain so I really think that we should take a hard look at how much dough we put into this in the future.

[jigging-matt]

One problem with this is that most landowners can make more on their land if they rent it out for corn. Due the the Ethanol plants, corn prices make the land more valuable in crop than it is in crp. So a lot of time landowners are losing money having their land in crp and not renting it out for cropland. When a farmer puts his land in crp he is helping with habitat, but remember he is a FARMER, so he livelyhood is his LAND and what he gets off of it. The Gov't pays him not to farm it and provide habitat. I would rather have him make some money from my tax dollar and provide habitat, than till up the habitat and plant crops. Have seen CRP get tilled in the area I hunt by my in-laws so they can plant more corn to make more money.

[CRAZYEYES]

Thats the problem, Its about money. When its convienent for the farmer to grow corn he will and when corn prices are bad he puts it back into CRP. I know that there are many farmers that care about habitat but I would suspect there are more that care about profit which i totally understand. There is a risk reward in any buisiness and we all want to make the best living we can. I just think that if they have the option of using tax dollars to better profit off their land tax payers should recieve benifit. I dont know the laws on crp conracts but I would suspect there is also some double dipping where they then lease it to hunters.

[BobT]

If CRP doesn't benefit anyone but the landowner, why do I keep reading over and over in Pheasants Forever publications about how CRP is being converted back into farmland and this is hurting pheasant populations? The truth is, it does benefit us. Pheasant populations rise and fall along with available habitat. That's been proven more than once.

Something many of you are forgetting to consider. This land is contracted for the purpose of reducing erosion, improving water and air quality, and providing habitat for wildlife that they would not otherwise have. Those landowners that are buying into those contracts are taking land out of production to do that. Sportsmen and women, wildlife enthusiasts, and game and fish departments grew concerned about the fact that so many private landowners were using their land for agriculture and as a result wildlife and those that benefit from them were taking a back seat. CRP was one of the solutions that came about.

Remember, land that is signed into CRP contracts are not acres that are sitting around doing nothing like some of us that own hunting property. This is land that they rely on for their livelihood and it is being taken out of production. How many of us are willing to go to part-time at our job so our company can hire a few unemployed workers? I don't think I have to guess.

If you don't think this is real then why is it such a problem that CRP contract signings are low? The fact is that when the contracts ended, the landowners lost a source of their income and were forced to put the land back into production. The wildlife, and consequently all of us, lost wildlife habitat. They don't put it back into production out of greed. They put it back into production so they can pay their bills just like any of us would go back to work if we were laid off.

Any of you that think the rent price offsets the losses in income are free to buy up a few sections and find out for yourself. Land rent does not pay as well as farming to begin with and then factor in 10 years without any inflation adjustment. If it did, every farmer today would be looking for some sucker to rent their land instead of farming it themselves.

So you would rather that the government buy up the land instead? After paying for the land and losing the crop production how do you suppose the food prices would stay down? How much wildlife habitat has been destroyed by us with our two, three, or even four-thousand square foot homes and three or four stall garages and hobby shops, paved city streets, along with urban sprawl? We all play a part in the habitat equation.

We keep looking at it from the wrong selfish perspective. We don't rent the land from the farmer. We compensate them based on the going rental rate so they can afford to take the land out of agricultural production for a few years. Then we can reap the benefits in the form of the habitat, clean water, and clean air it generates.

I can guarantee you one thing. CRP does not pay enough for this part-time farmer to consider my property public. I see hunters on my land all the time and it's illegal. I've seen snowmobile tracks crossing my property during winter. Heck, I've even seen car tracks across my hay field. Normally it doesn't really bother me too much but on opening day of pheasant season it bothers me a lot. This is because I have a couple gentlemen that were considerate enough to take the time and ask for my permission to hunt. Now, we are hunting partners every pheasant opener and I can see how it upsets them when we see other hunters on my property. For this reason, I feel I have a responsibility to post my land now out of respect for my new friends. You have no idea how close I've come to borrowing their trucks while they borrowed my land. Someday I just might borrow it and bring it home. When they come to get it, it'll cost them rent.

CRP is still private agricultural land. If you want to hunt it, take a few minutes and get permission. Wouldn't you appreciate the same respect and consideration from me before I park my car in your garage for a day or have a picnic on your front lawn?

[Matt Breuer]

Someone said something about how CRP doesn't benefit them. You're so wrong it's not even funny. You know how many birds nest in quality CRP? How about deer bedding and good grass for the doe's to raise their fawns? We NEED land like CRP set aside for habitat, otherwise wildlife would dwindle. Look at how many animals were becoming threatened in MN because grasslands were turned into cropland...

As for taxpayers paying for the CRP, and it not being fair to hunt it... I'm sure if you told a farmer that you'd rent a tractor, spray and mow his CRP for him, he'd be happy to let you hunt it.

[JeffB]

I do agree totally with what you guys are sayn it is a slap in the tax payers face. CRP= Pay farmer good money for non-productive farm land that has always been jus that!

I see your point, but they don't pay enough money out for people to give up control of their land and who goes on it. As a farmer I would love to have some land in CRP for my own hunting, but even on the marginal land its no big money maker. If the farmer needs to give up the control of the land usage to the public we will lose a lot of land thats in the CRP program. The animals will lose habitat, and many people will lose hunting oportunity. If you think owning CRP is a big money maker go buy some there is plenty for sale, and put a big sign up Free Hunting For All. I don't own any CRP but I wish I did. Just my opinion.

[graingrower]

This false sense of "taxpayer entitlement" reinforces my determination to completely reject any request to hunt on my ag land, and furthermore; encourage neighboring farmers to follow my lead. Tresspassing has become problem enough, but if ANYONE came to me with the argument that their tax dollar puchased them the right to use my land the resulting escort to the road would be swift and severe. I can think of nothing that could develop into a wedge between landowner and sportmen than an attack on their private choice of land/revenue management.

[CRAZYEYES]

Like I said before, I totally understand the profit thing Imjust think in the twenty odd years that Crp has been around it would have been much more beneficial to the tax payer to use this money to permanantly protect land with public access. When the crp gets plowed under everyone is unhappy and we could have had a lot more land where this will never happen. We can't expect that the money will always be in the budget for crp and in the end we could end up where we started with a lot of bare dirt and very little wildlife.