CRP and posting requirements???

[ReelTimes]

There is no question that the CRP program has enhanced pheasant numbers and benefited sportsman. I do not own CRP and personally don't expect to have access to that land just because of a crp payment. I think the real, unspoken issue and frustration for many is the lack of access to good quality, public hunting land for pheasant hunting in MN. There isn't enough land for the number of hunters in this state. Unless you can hunt midweek, weekend hunting is very challenging because the hunter demand exceeds the land supply. I think I have hunted just about every public WMA or WPA in SW MN at one time or another. The hunting pressure is unbelievable. I finally stopped hunting pheasant in this state and do all my pheasant hunting out of state. On a positive note, I spend my MN hunting hours Grouse hunting. There is a tremendous amount of public land available to hunt without all the hunting pressure, and the bird #s continue to be awesome. I do wish our MN DNR would do more to enhance access to additional hunting lands for pheasant, though.

[croixflats]

I tell ya, I had a knee jerk response to a post, It was not yours and it does not matter whose it was. I took a position and transitioning that to political and carried on with it. That wake engulfed a simple post, not proud of that.

-

I took that $3 dollar an acre thing you mentioned, I remember My bro mentioning/explaining ( Forgive that space in memory) a different system pertaining to the CPR and private land in Montana where he lives.

-

I came up with this though it does not pertain to Minnesota directly but I feel it has pertinence;

Sidebar 2: The Role of the Conservation Reserve Program in Controlling Rural Residential Development

Jerry Johnson

Bruce Maxwell

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), can play a role in slowing and even preventing sprawl on the rural countryside in regions where population is growing. Using a land use prediction model designed for a mixed agricultural/residential landscape in southwest Montana, we demonstrated that CRP is shown to preserve and protect the vital ecological functions sustained by the preservation of agricultural land as well as curtailing the supply of land for rural residential development. With CRP as part of the land management mosaic, the area was projected to have an average residential land use growth rate of almost half that of areas without CRP enrollment.

CRP is not without some negative impacts to agricultural communities including a decline in local agricultural employment and associated economic activity as well as changing consumer spending habits. Very simply, as less land is cultivated, less labor is needed for farming, less crop is stored in local granaries, and fewer implements are replaced or maintained. In many cases small businesses that directly supported agriculture fail and as they do so other “main street” businesses suffer. At the same time farmers were somewhat better off economically as their farm incomes stabilized due to guaranteed CRP payments.

We conducted a study of land use change in Three Forks, Montana. The town lies at the headwaters of the Missouri River in Gallatin County and is an ideal community for the investigation of rural change as it makes a transition from an economy based primarily on natural resources to one that is increasingly regionalized toward Bozeman and Helena. The geographically diverse landscape requires that most agricultural activity is itself highly disjointed – both how it is spatially located and in terms of production; that is, hay and grain production is mixed with beef cattle operations. However the diversity of the landscape, the large riparian zones, and agricultural mix creates an attractive location for those who like small rural towns with nearby employment opportunity. The local microclimate is dry and windy and is comprised of locations of highly erodable soils thereby enabling much of the local agricultural land to qualify for CRP enrollment.

Using a Geographical Information System (GIS) platform, we began the study of land use change with an inventory of land use in the area and then calculated a probability transition matrix (multiple layers of information through time and space) for land use analysis and forecasting purposes in a landscape dominated by private ownership.

We calculated our land use change forecasts in two ways – one with CRP in the land management mix and one without CRP.

The results of the map cells classified as residential following the two growth scenarios indicate that with CRP in the land use mix the extent of rural residential development in the study area decreased and resulted in two diverging trend lines that represent the number of cells that could be expected to have changed from no development to residential with and without CRP in the prediction equation (see figure below).

Data table for Figure 4 Year Without CRP With CRP

2000 98 84

2005 105 88

2015 121 95

2025 137 104

With CRP in the land management mix the number of cells in residential land use was observed and predicted to have grown 14% between 1984 to 1995 and 23% from 2000 to 2025. Without CRP in the mix, the area was projected to have a residential land use growth rate of 27% and 40% growth rates for the same periods.

The finding is important for several reasons. Aside from the obvious economic benefits of retaining agricultural employment and earnings in a rural economy, keeping agricultural lands intact can be a desirable amenity for community residents. The strategy preserves open space and prevents piecemeal residential development. Agricultural land in CRP can benefit the ecology, economy, and aesthetics of the community. However, tracts of agricultural land in the midst of rapid residential growth can bring negative consequences for local residents. While rural nonfarm residents may enjoy the open space provided by active farming operations, some farming activities may be considered bothersome. This includes negative public reaction to the application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; smells from animal production activities; slow-moving farm vehicles on commuter roads; increased incidence of air pollution from harvesting and burning; and increased demand on local water supply for irrigation.

The ideal scenario might be a land management regime where the conservation and residential development effects of the program are left intact but the negative agricultural impacts are reduced. We propose that CRP could support a “mixed” land management whereby conservation of water and soil (as well as visual) qualities of farmland are preserved if farmers would manage the land to focus the conservation elements attributed to CRP into “ecological islands” or refuges within productive agricultural fields. In effect, this would optimize the landscape diversity of a rural community in which the farm spaces would be fragmented with ecologically functional patches of native species, protected riparian zones, and even recreational trails. Some rural housing may be interspersed on the edges of the large open spaces but the land would remain primarily in agricultural production. The ecological benefits of such a land use setting would be, in effect, concentrated to localized areas within the larger agricultural context. The management goal for CRP would become to continue ecological protection and for the landowner it would be to preserve agricultural production. The community would benefit through the preservation of open space.

[brittman]

CRP is ag land no doubt. Does not need to be posted to be off limits and permission will be required to hunt.

That said, CRP fills with snow rather quickly and the birds must move on. It is December 1 tomorrow ... come on ice (as in frozen wetlands and not ice storms), come on snow.

[JIGGIN']

Thanks for all reply's. A lot of good responses here. Page 8 of the regs. states this one very clearly.

Permission is the best way to go and it is the Law!

Cleared this one up for a buddy very well...

[BrdHunter01]

There are good and bad public hunting lands out there. I just think that if the private CRP lands were to become public it could have negative affects on the wildlife and the land.

Allowing people to hunt this "unposted" land in ND has really crushed the bird population..... There is barely a pheasant or any wildlife left in the area

[gr8icefishinmind]

Plain and simple.....if the land is not public, stay off it!! Tresspassers that get caught should have their licenses revoked. State and public land is marked so if there is not marking on the land edges then it is obviously private whether it is posted or not!! The " i didn't know" excuse is pretty stupid!!

[Dave S]

Originally Posted By: [pleasebecomeasponsor]

There are good and bad public hunting lands out there. I just think that if the private CRP lands were to become public it could have negative affects on the wildlife and the land.

Allowing people to hunt this "unposted" land in ND has really crushed the bird population..... There is barely a pheasant or any wildlife left in the area

A person is better off not spending the money on a ND license. There's no birds left and it's all because of the lack of trespass laws.

[strait-meat]

I think since CRP is funded by the gov't (thru tax payers dollars/subsidy), it is my belief that it should be part of the condition when these farmers take this money to make these areas "open to hunting" and treat it like a "Walk-in-Land". The public is paying for these farmers not farm certain areas, the public should also enjoy the opportunity to hunt these areas as well.

[BobT]

I think since CRP is funded by the gov't (thru tax payers dollars/subsidy), it is my belief that it should be part of the condition when these farmers take this money to make these areas "open to hunting" and treat it like a "Walk-in-Land". The public is paying for these farmers not farm certain areas, the public should also enjoy the opportunity to hunt these areas as well.

I can see your point and I understand where you’re coming from but I also think that in order to do that, the public should also be willing to do one of the following.

1.

Pay for that privilege. Right now, the public is asking farmers to take a cut in pay and remove certain marginal income-producing property off their payroll in order to help reduce erosion. In the process hunters enjoy a side benefit of the program that the average citizen does not despite the fact that they too help pay for said program. Put yourself in the farmer’s shoes and ask yourself if you would be willing to take a pay cut in exchange to opening your property to the rest of society? Remember, this is not land that some guy buys with extra cash on hand like a few acres of hunting property. This is land that they rely on for their bread and butter.

OR

2.

Take full responsibility for the property while it is in the public care. The public should then be responsible for all labor, equipment, and purchase costs associated with the prep tillage, seeding, maintaining, and returning the property to the farmer as it was when it was acquired so he/she can put it back into production again.

We have to remember that the CRP program is a voluntary cooperative effort between the farmer and the USDA. These are farmers that care about their land and the environment. These farmers understand the negative impact their business practices can have on the environment and are willing to give up some of their income in order to help out. Think about where you work. How much does your employer do for the environment voluntarily at the expense of the business? Farmers that enroll their land are not in it for the money. If you think that then I’ll again ask you to take my challenge and prove me wrong. Buy some land, get it enrolled (what portion qualifies), go through the process, open it to the public as you want farmers to do, and see how well it goes. Let us know how it works out.

[fishingfool]

I dont normally respond, but I felt I had to in this situation (I also dont know how to copy quotes from above into my respones so if someone would help me out it would be appreciated)

Some made reference to ND and the poor pheasant hunting and excused it by stating that the trepass rules has "crushed" the bird population. I apologize but you coudl not be further from the truth.

First a little biology. Male pheasants are polygamous, meaning roosters will mate with several hens. Therefore, since we only harvest male pheasants they are virtually impossible to overharvest (you could take 90% of the males out every year and have no effect on next year's population). In addition there is evidence that suggests roosters could out compete hens for limited food (if that condition exists)during severe winters which could actually hurt the overall population. so harvesting as many roosters as possible annually is a good thing.

What actually has "crushed" the bird population in ND and other states is a combination of weather and habitat removal.

ND lost 420,000 acres of CRP in 2007 and is on deck to lose more. Additionally when commodity prices sykrocketed a while back many acres of habitat were turned over to grain (including but not limited to the above CRP acres).

At the same time ND experienced severe winters and wet cold springs (the two weather related things that limit pheasant reproductive success).

That combination is what "crushed" the pheasants not hunting CRP!

Whether you like CRP or not, think the public should be allowed to hunt it or not, the fact remains that pheasants need two things to survive and thrive: Habitat and conducive weather. CRP is the grassland base that historically supported recent record level pheasant populations. If that goes away so does the wildlife. And as someone earlier said CRP does benefit all of us in many ways even if you are not directly on the CRP acres. If we lose this battle additional CRP authority we are currently fighting, and the CRP disappears, so will the wildlife.

[MNUser]

I agree BobT that the farmers are taking less allowing their land in to be in CRP. But, they are also getting paid for it to be in CRP through tax dollars. You also forgot to mention that farmers are taking a lot of other money in subsidies through-out the year. Just to give you an idea of the amount here are some stats. These are

• $133 million in subsidies 1995-2006. - (Just Grant County)

One Farm (can be looked up on the HSOforum provided) • $3,417,443 (years 1995 though 2006)

One Farm (can be looked up on the HSOforum provided) • $182,810 (just the year 2006)

• $167 million in subsidies 1995-2006 - (Just Stevens County)

One Farm (can be looked up on the HSOforum provided) • $2,234,530 (years 1995 though 2006)

One Farm (can be looked up on the HSOforum provided) • $191,234 (just the year 2006)

• Minnesota ranking: 5 of 50

(http://farm.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=27149) - Just other counties and search what farmers are getting what for payment.

If the government was willing to pay me 3 million+ in subsidies, I would take a small payment for my CRP land and walk away smiling.

So, add some of these amounts to the CRP payments and the bigger farmers are doing OK with the small amount they are getting paid for their CRP land. Just another way to look at it. I do agree with strait-meat with the land should be available for walk in hunting.

On a side note. I have access to lots of CRP land via family members so having no access is not an issue. I just would like to see the playing field leveled for all those that like to hunt. Hunting, like all other outdoor activities, is becoming a sport for the haves and have nots. It is important that we get a new, young generation involved and excited about hunting.

[BLACKJACK]

Interesting post!!! I picked it up late but slogged thru it.

It seems like the posts are from two camps, the "Have CRP" camp and the "Don't Have CRP" camp, with a few rabble rousing posts. Hopefully by now the Have Nots have been educated by the Haves that CRP isn't really the money making deal that they think it is, that CRP benefits everyone by cutting back erosion, increasing habitat in an area, etc. If you still think its a big boondogle and unfair to tax payers, go out and buy some farmland, turn it into CRP, subsidize it for 10 years, then report back on how profitable it was.

I think the root of the problem is that pheasant hunting is only as good as the land you have to hunt, combine that with the fact that MN has a LOT of pheasant hunters, and even with lots of public land, it gets pounded. Yesterday I hunted a public area for two hours and saw 3 pheasants, one a rooster at 80 yards. But I had a nice hunt, I needed the exercise after T-day.

We need to continue to support orgainzations like Pheasants Forever and DU, their funds get used to purchase more public lands. I also think more could be done to manage other public lands for all wildlife, not just ducks - I'm talking about Waterfowl Production Areas, we could have twice as many pheasants on them if they'd leave a 5 acre shelterbelt and a 10 acre food plot. Hunters are begging for more good quality public land but all the Fish and Wildlife service is concerned about is ducks.

[BobT]

I agree BobT that the farmers are taking less allowing their land in to be in CRP. But, they are also getting paid for it to be in CRP through tax dollars. You also forgot to mention that farmers are taking a lot of other money in subsidies through-out the year. Just to give you an idea of the amount here are some stats. These are

• $133 million in subsidies 1995-2006. - (Just Grant County)

One Farm (can be looked up on the HSOforum provided) • $3,417,443 (years 1995 though 2006)

One Farm (can be looked up on the HSOforum provided) • $182,810 (just the year 2006)

• $167 million in subsidies 1995-2006 - (Just Stevens County)

One Farm (can be looked up on the HSOforum provided) • $2,234,530 (years 1995 though 2006)

One Farm (can be looked up on the HSOforum provided) • $191,234 (just the year 2006)

• Minnesota ranking: 5 of 50

(http://farm.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=27149) - Just other counties and search what farmers are getting what for payment.

If the government was willing to pay me 3 million+ in subsidies, I would take a small payment for my CRP land and walk away smiling.

So, add some of these amounts to the CRP payments and the bigger farmers are doing OK with the small amount they are getting paid for their CRP land. Just another way to look at it. I do agree with strait-meat with the land should be available for walk in hunting.

On a side note. I have access to lots of CRP land via family members so having no access is not an issue. I just would like to see the playing field leveled for all those that like to hunt. Hunting, like all other outdoor activities, is becoming a sport for the haves and have nots. It is important that we get a new, young generation involved and excited about hunting.

The farmers with the numbers you mention are not managing just a 40 or 80 acre plot. You’re talking thousands of acres of land with millions in investment dollars annually. Like I’ve said twice already. If it’s so great, put up. Then, when you’ve been in it for a decade or two, let me know how it’s going. If you still feel the same way after that, I’ll concede to your point.

Good luck.

It’s sad how in this country the have not’s somehow think the have’s owe them something even though they themselves are unwilling to jump into the have’s pool.

[Dave S]

Some made reference to ND and the poor pheasant hunting and excused it by stating that the trepass rules has "crushed" the bird population. I apologize but you coudl not be further from the truth.

You obviously didn't read through the emoticons to see the sarcasm in my post.

As far as quoting someone, you simply have to press the 'Quote' button on the post you want to quote, scroll down to the bottom of the window and place your cursor after the last bracketed quote that looks like

[Dave S]

After reading through this entire thread a few times, and BobT's feverish attempt to help people understand things from a farming perspective, I agree with Bob.

Until people start to understand the expense involved with farming a mere acre of land, let alone thousands, I highly recommend you take your gripe to a local farmer with CRP land and see how far it gets you.

After you're removed from the property in a 'Not So Pleasant' manor, hobble your way down the road to the next farmer and try a more diplomatic approach to gain hunting acces to his CRP.

[fishingfool]

LEP7MM,

Sorry for misunderstanding your post. I am new to this.

thanks for the quote help!

[Dave S]

No problem fishingfool. Glad to help. I'm married so I'm misunderstood all the time.

[scsavre]

Are the people on here that want the CRP land public, the guys who only put in a few hours and just doesnt have the seeds to go up and knock on a farmers door.

Sure i have been told no by a farmer, but lets get real, put some time and effort into it. There are farmers that will say yes. Or maybe drive a little farther, hunt a little longer and harder. Do some research find a different WMA or private land.

I dont know where i am hunting tomorrow, but its going to be a new area. I am going to put a good effort in. I might get skunked, but thats ok. But i am not going to come back and complain that i couldnt get on somebodies CRP land.

[gr8icefishinmind]

And it is their right to say no....they OWN the property kind like how we OWN our houses or OWN our vehicles! Usually we don't let the general public use it or open it up to the public!! It is the OWNERS choice!!

[muc33]

Ok guys and gals, we have now just gotten to a tension point here and all points in my opinion were spoken, and I don't feel it can go any further an stay productive. So, I am going to lock this so we don't get into any heated stuff that doesn't need to happen. Again, as always, thanks for keeping it civil crew good job!