CRP and Public Hunting

[pulleye16]

Why can't we hunt CRP land? Other states pay a higher premium to farmers who plant CRP and make it legal hunting land. In fact, they have to "post" it as huntable. Why should I pay taxes to these farmers when it only benefits them? MAKE IT LEGAL TO HUNT! I'd have no problem giving them a little more per acre if we could hunt it.

[B. Amish]

from the Outdoor News

Quote:

St. Paul — Sportsmen and women in Minnesota hoping for greater access to hunting areas could see that wish come true by next year. The state DNR recently was notified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that its application for funding for a pilot “walk-in” access program had been approved. The DNR is slated to receive nearly $600,000 in “Open Fields” funding.

Dennis Simon, DNR Wildlife chief, said the grant agreement with the USDA must be signed, and the state department must comply with terms of the National Environmental Policy Act, which includes such things as determining the effects of such a program on the environment.

Simon said the $582,376 approved by the USDA is just a portion of the full amount the DNR requested; the rest could come later. The state’s application totaled $2.7 million during a three-year period, during which officials hope to enroll up to 50,000 acres in 16 southwestern Minnesota counties for the pilot program.

The remainder of the funding is probable during the next two years, Simon said, but it still must go through Congress’ appropriation process.

It’s hoped the first year’s funding could enroll about 10,000 acres.

“But until we get out and talk to landowners, we don’t know what the interest (in participating in the program) might be,” Simon said.

Total funding nationwide the next three years could be $50 million, the amount authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill. The “Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program” made the funds available to states like North and South Dakota to expand existing programs, but also to states like Minnesota, to get walk-in programs off the ground. Twenty-six states currently have varying types of public access programs for hunters and other users.

Simon said Minnesota could have requested more federal money, but the amount applied for was “more than we originally discussed in the (state) Legislature for a pilot program.” (A plan for a walk-in pilot eventually was scrapped when it was part of a larger bill vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty earlier this year.)

A goal of 10,000 acres enrolled in the first year seemed reasonable, Simon said.

“It’s going to take the cooperation of landowners in Minnesota to make this work,” he said.

The DNR will work in cooperation with the state’s Board of Water and Soil Resources (the Farm Bill Assistance Partnership) to consult with landowners interested in such a program. Local soil and water conservation districts and groups like Pheasants Forever will play roles in informing landowners about their options.

They say it’s likely much of the interest might come from those with land already enrolled in federal or federal/state conservation programs – like the Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, or the Wetlands Reserve Program.

The future of a program probably will hinge on landowner interest, and future funding options.

“Major elements include program development, producer/landowner marketing and enrollment, signing enrolled lands, producing various user information to increase hunter awareness and utilization, producer/landowner payment, and program evaluation,” according to the application. “Results from this pilot program will be assessed and used to make improvements to a permanent program which provides both satisfied landowners and hunters.”

The DNR’s application says payments will be structured along a flat rate of $10 to $15 per acre, with tested required to determine the actual price with other incentives. A minimum of 40 acres of pre-existing wildlife habitat will be required, it says. Landowners would be able to withdraw from the program with a 30-day written notice, but it might affect their payments.

According to the DNR’s application for the federal grant money, a public access program “will help reduce a documented unmet demand for additional places to hunt.”

Over 70,000 acres of CREP land are in the pilot area – land that’s enrolled in a conservation program, but still off-limits to hunters, without the permission of the landowner. That will be the target of the pilot program, the state’s application says.

The DNR also applied for just under $1 million next year, and just over $1 million the following year.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Why can't we hunt CRP land? Other states pay a higher premium to farmers who plant CRP and make it legal hunting land. In fact, they have to "post" it as huntable. Why should I pay taxes to these farmers when it only benefits them? MAKE IT LEGAL TO HUNT!

[TruthWalleyes]

Allowing farmers the Option of letting others hunt their CRP land by enrolling in this program i support...

Allowing all hunters to blunder into others CRP land i do not support.

Pulleye, If you are having poor luck in public land, and are not personable enough to ask landowners for permission...then get out a checkbook and buy your own land. Put up CRP, hunt it, get your tax dollars back, etc...but suggesting that landowners give up rights to their upland grasses, is quite silly.

Get a plat book and start calling the landowners of this CRP land you wish to hunt, maybe they will let you... maybe they wont... but i bet if you ask enough people they will help you out.

Have you seen public toilets...well that is what all the CRP will look like if you allow free roam. I don't think that is what you want. Besides, CRP land provides shelter, and new areas for bird population growth. These birds will likely expand to neighboring public lands... and inturn help everyone out.

[creepworm]

This topic again. As I stated the last time this topic came up, CRP is not about wildlife habitat. It is aimed at preventing erosion. I am in favor of CRP no matter what. If all farmers would put buffer strips along creeks or not farm marginal land many of the lakes would not be so full of phosphorus and green. Every time you drive past CRP you can not hunt, try to think about the good it is doing by being there, instead of having the its all about me attitude.

[pulleye16]

Allowing farmers the Option of letting others hunt their CRP land by enrolling in this program i support...

Allowing all hunters to blunder into others CRP land i do not support.

Pulleye, If you are having poor luck in public land, and are not personable enough to ask landowners for permission...then get out a checkbook and buy your own land. Put up CRP, hunt it, get your tax dollars back, etc...but suggesting that landowners give up rights to their upland grasses, is quite silly.

Get a plat book and start calling the landowners of this CRP land you wish to hunt, maybe they will let you... maybe they wont... but i bet if you ask enough people they will help you out.

Have you seen public toilets...well that is what all the CRP will look like if you allow free roam. I don't think that is what you want. Besides, CRP land provides shelter, and new areas for bird population growth. These birds will likely expand to neighboring public lands... and inturn help everyone out.

Maybe my first post was written properly (bad experience during duck opener) but my intentions were to OFFER the option (with a higher payout)to ALLOW for CRP land to be open to the public like other states have done. I will do more research on this but It appears to be having good results where this is allowed. This would not "require" CRP land owners to allow for hunting but may if they choose so with higher premiums. It since it's being talked about, others see this as a good thing as well and it looks like it will pass sometime in the future.

CRP was developed for protection of soil-this is true, and allows for a safe habit for wildlife "IF" the owners themselves do not hunt it. But State, federal, and county land was also intended to protect land as well from development and this is surely huntable! WPA, WMA offer the same "protection" as well but those are huntable.

And writting a check to purchase land is definetly an option and will be in the future but being stuck to hunt the same parcel would be boring. Many private land owners while growning up were very open to letting me hunt, now most of it is "closed" and being leased...which is fine, it's their land. Opening up some CRP would offer 1000's of acres to hunt allowing for better public land hunting as well (less pressure).

And finally, Saying the CRP land would look like a toilet is a straight insult to me and any other hunter, fisherman, and outdoors person. MOST outdoor people RESPECT the land and waters they use! To say I don't see garbage would be very irresponsible of me but I would have to argue that for the majority, it is not coming for "US". I've been all over this great state and other public hunting land in nearby states and would have to say that public land is VERY well taken care of...in fact its multiple times cleaner then most cities I've seen because we outdoor people respect the land!

[BobT]

Quote:

This would not "require" CRP land owners to allow for hunting but may if they choose so with higher premiums. It since it's being talked about, others see this as a good thing as well and it looks like it will pass sometime in the future.

I don't think it is necessary to go where you propose. First, so you know where I'm coming from, I am a farmer. I do not have any land in CRP but what you propose is already available without the cost you propose.

We farmers can allow hunting right now to those who obtain permission. I see no reason to pay us farmers more to encourage us to open our land to public hunting unless by paying the premium we would be required to do so. Your proposal, if I understand it correctly, would pay farmers a premium to open the land to public hunting but not require it. I could therefore get the premium but then deny access? What would the citizens gain by that besides higher cost?

Just ask for permission. I'm willing to bet that most farmers are open to granting access.

[BobT]

Maybe I'm an odd duck but I personally think we farmers, those that qualify, get compensated well enough for enrolling our land in CRP. I don't think it should be a money-making proposition. It's intended to encourage farmers with highly erodable land to take it out of production and therefore help protect against erosion, improve water quality, and as a side benefit provide a little more habitat for local wildlife. In most cases the land should be the type that is a pain in the neck to farm anyway. Probably too wet most of the time or too hilly for decent farming. The farmer still receives an income from the land but doesn't have the cost or risk of generating the income on his own. Putting the land into CRP also frees up some of his time and so he's free to lease additional land if he feels the need to increase his income further.

CRP doesn't pay well enough that I feel the landowner should be required to give up his rights to the land but at the same time I also feel that landowners that deny access to CRP are perhaps a bit selfish in my opinion. I understand that the landowner should be able to control how much access is gained and should be able to know who is on his land and when. Too many of us are way too selfish about it though.

[Jack Peterson]

We have 27 acres of land in CRP, and the only reason is for establishing a 27 acre White and Red Oak forest. We've literally planted thousands of trees in the last 12 years. The last thing I want is hunters going around and walking on these little seedlings. Although, we often have more than 50 pheasants in that small section of CRP. If people wanted to hunt them, I would say no, only because I raised almost all of them over the years. Not to mention I enjoy seeing these pheasants daily, and don't want people and dogs chasing them out of the area. CRP isn't only hunting land, it is restoration land. We're trying to restore Oak forests that farmers and settlers cut down a hundred or more years ago. But heck, if you're desperate to get out and shoot some CRP pheasants or other birds, just get out and make some friends by asking people if you can hunt.

[BobT]

You make a good point, Jack, that didn't occur to me. There can be circumstances that explain why some land is closed by the owners and this could be true whether it is enrolled in the CRP program or not.

[pulleye16]

I do agree with your points made. One thing to clear up-it wouldn't be manditory for CRP owners to allow for access. Lets say you get $50 an acre. Like other states, if you choose to allow for hunting, they would give you $75. you can choose to allow this or not, its your decision so if you have planted trees or want to keep it private you can. But for land owners who don't care and already allow hunters on their property and want the extra money, it would make them "post" their property open to hunting. It wouldn't change a thing to land owners who want to keep their land THEIRS! It would just allow for more land for the public to hunt while giving taxes dollars to a good cause....for hunters of course!

[TruthWalleyes]

Farmers already are paid for their CRP land, and the option to let others hunt is already there. Get out and meet some locals, offer them pheasants, walleyes, deer, chocolates, free labor, etc... to help the relationship.

I love our CRP land because we stay out of it! It gets hunted 5-8 times a year for pheasants, and my father/brother hunt it for deer. It doesn't get pressured. This is why hunting remains good.....you can't pull your limit of fish out of the same honey hole every day and expect the fish to be there a year later!

[goblueM]

like has been said - its not a hunting program. Its a land use program, aimed at preventing degradation of soils, and ideally increasing wildlife habitat

i think some confuse programs like PLOTS in ND with CRP. if you want more land for hunting, support more public land. it is the only way to guarantee more land for hunting and keep things from being developed or farmed

[BobT]

Quote:

One thing to clear up-it wouldn't be manditory for CRP owners to allow for access. Lets say you get $50 an acre. Like other states, if you choose to allow for hunting, they would give you $75. you can choose to allow this or not, its your decision so if you have planted trees or want to keep it private you can.

Not trying to be a pain. I'm still not following your line of thinking. As a farmer, if I had land enrolled in CRP, I would already have the option to allow access. If I'm paid more and still have the same option, what benefit does that do the tax payers?

What you're saying would make more sense if you proposed that we could increase our payment by accepting a condition that says we MUST open our land to public hunting. That would justify the increased rental payment. Otherwise, your proposal is just paying us more without getting anything in return.

[TruthWalleyes]

....Suppose such a thing passes, and the farmers that get the extra $25/acre have a sign "public hunting allowed" in front of their CRP...

So two months into this new deal...there's a post on FM by Pulleye16...

"Here i was sitting in this CRP deer hunting and the farmer comes out and starts stock chop'n ten feet infront of me on opener morning, how inconsiderate"....

I think we'd all be better off by just asking for permission...If its public hunting, then the farmer does not owe anyone hunting that land a warning for when he's going to start field work... If you knew the guy, he'd probably tell you that he'll be out there working the field, and it won't be worth your time to deer hunt etc.

Today, farmers can put a sign in front of their property saying "go ahead and hunt this CRP..I don't care"....but do you see any of these signs?

[pulleye16]

So two months into this new deal...there's a post on FM by Pulleye16...

"Here i was sitting in this CRP deer hunting and the farmer comes out and starts stock chop'n ten feet infront of me on opener morning, how inconsiderate"....

YES-thats EXCATLY what I'd do!!! Where do you come up with this 5hit?

Well I guess we'll see if this passes in the coming years...

[TruthWalleyes]

I appologize Pulleye, I was trying to show a potential conflict down the road with public CRP and i shouldn't have used you as an example...and probably a poor example at that.

[BobT]

Quote:

and it won't be worth your time to deer hunt etc.

Actually, if he's out chopping corn.....

[TruthWalleyes]

Thats why i said stock chopping.... I know to stick around during combining

[creepworm]

Isn't this the exact same principle as the "walk in area" in SD. I thought I read that this has gotten some funding and will probably be implemented in the next couple years in Minnesota.

[BobT]

I've heard of walk-in areas but don't know much more about them than that. I would suspect that landowners will either designate their land for this at no charge or receive a premium to do so, in which case they would be required to allow access. That would be my guess.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Quote:

One thing to clear up-it wouldn't be manditory for CRP owners to allow for access. Lets say you get $50 an acre. Like other states, if you choose to allow for hunting, they would give you $75. you can choose to allow this or not, its your decision so if you have planted trees or want to keep it private you can.

Not trying to be a pain. I'm still not following your line of thinking. As a farmer, if I had land enrolled in CRP, I would already have the option to allow access. If I'm paid more and still have the same option, what benefit does that do the tax payers?

What you're saying would make more sense if you proposed that we could increase our payment by accepting a condition that says we MUST open our land to public hunting. That would justify the increased rental payment. Otherwise, your proposal is just paying us more without getting anything in return.

I'm pretty sure that is exactly what he is saying

[pulleye16]

I'll stop being so direct also...we all have opinions and there are some great arguments here. I just don't think that you guys that are opposed of this see that it will not change a thing for anyone who doesn't wish to participate. ONLY if you choose to allow for the higher premuim would things change for you. The only thing this would accomplish would allow for more public hunting land...plain and simple, which most people I would think would be in favor of....right? It's not like they would require you to turn your CRP land into a public hunting ground, unless you choose for the higher premium and then you'd be allowing you CRP to be hunted for public use BUT would require to post it. I see no reason this would hurt anyone and change anything to private land owners. They still can control their land anyway they choose!

Again, I think we are both looking at it from two different points of veiw and yours is more powerfull cause YOU have the CRP land, not me! But I'm sure some out there who own CRP, maybe could use a few extra dollars, and could care less if its hunted or not would enjoy this program and offer 1000's of more public acres for hunting!

[creepworm]

http://outdoornews.com/minnesota/news/article_6e67d186-d16f-11df-910b-001cc4c03286.html

Here you go, this is exactly what you want and it is going to happen. Walk in areas are privately owned land that the government pays the owner to allow the public to use. They are posted as public and anyone can go in them without asking.

[pulleye16]

Great-thanks creepworm. I've been researching other states that have allowed this but never searched MN cause I've never heard of it hear yet!

Walk-in IS different from CRP but the basis is the same, it just doesn't have to be CRP-it can be anything! GREAT 10,000 more acres for public hunting...