CRP Loss

[Augusta]

Pistol,

Thanks for your feedback and support of some type of PLOTS program, we need more people, farmers and sportsman alike to come together to support this type of idea. I will tell you this, farmers should not expect sportsman to support the CRP program when the sportman are denied access to hunt. We NEED to work together on this issue, or simpy put, the CRP program will be no more. Non farmers and non sportsman outnumber our groups by a huge margin. We cannot afford this petty bickering amongst ourselves. If we do,say goodbye to a good thing for both of us and I will say this, As a sportsman, I personally will not support the CRP program "as is". The CRP program has cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money, and without some type of access program, I will vote to put the money into programs that will give ALL taxpayers equal access just like the WMA'S.

[Augusta]

Quote:

---

Why didn't CRP result in Million Bird harvests like soil bank?? We converted too many wetlands, pasture, and odd areas to row crops in the years between.

For every acre of CRP enrolled 3 acres of other "odd" land was converted to row crop agriculture. It's amazing the populations could even stay stable much less increase 34% over the 1968-1985 average with the

Loss

of 3.6 million productive pheasant acres from 1987 to 1997.

From the Long Range Pheasant Plan at

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/outdoor_activities/hunting/pheasant/pheasantplan_final2005.pdf

During the peak of CRP enrollment in Minnesota (1987-97), about 1.2 million acres of cropland in the pheasant range was retired, 95% of which was planted to grass.

Applying the models, we expected an extra 1.1 million birds in the population (1.2 million acres x 95% grass x 1 bird/grass acre) and 275,000 roosters in the harvest (1.1

million birds x 1 rooster harvested/4 pheasants in population). In reality, average harvest increased by only 62,200 compared to the period before CRP (1974-86), which

suggests that CRP added only about 1 bird per 4 acres of habitat. However, CRP was frequently disturbed ("emergency" haying was common). Furthermore, for every acre of

CRP established during 1987-97, about 3 acres of hay, small grains, and pasture were lost. These alternate habitats produce only about 1/4 the chicks as CRP. If the negative effects of losing these alternate habitats are subtracted, it appears that CRP added about 1 bird/acre.

---

I am going to repost this post simply because I really think eveyone needs to click on the link and read it. It contains some very good information.

[Hammer Handle]

I agree the PLOTS program is great. More money for the farmer is great too.

Right now, farmers get in the program for they feel they are doing something good for the wildlife and sometimes for their own hunting...not for the $$. You may be able to swing some over with more $$ offered.

But, if the farmer has already paid for all the grass seed, trees or whatever has been planted and maintain the land...and you want to open it up to the public for hunting...that will be very very tough. It would take a lot more $$ to sway them over. Remember, many are not in it for the money. If the CRP program dies, they will just rent the land out. Why not? More money, and they can still have the freedom to hunt and use the land without the public interfering.

Look at all the issues with hunters on public land? I don't see many farmers that are hunters that want to deal with this. Unlike ND, most of the farmers here hunt. And, if the CRP land happens to touch a lake (like some of ours), then what?

[kobear]

Let's be sure we're comparing apples and apples. If I farm my land I get $24 an acre in Direct Counter Cyclical payments. If the crop price falls below $X I get Loan Deficency Payments. If it's in CRP I was getting $42 an acre. Aren't we renting all cropland? We're making payments on every acre out there not just CRP it's important to realize this. If you farm 1500 acres which is common your DCP was around $36,000. And you had no CRP, bad water, no wildlife, and didn't let anyone hunt. Is this what we want, because we DO get what we pay for. If we can hunt any acres we make payments on I can hunt every acre of cropland in the US, well almost some farms are nonparticipating about 1%. When you see that commodity programs alone are spending $64 billion with another $55 billion for crop insurance ($119 billion) and CRP/WRP gets $26 billion don't some bells ring.

[Augusta]

Quote:

---

Let's be sure we're comparing apples and apples. If I farm my land I get $24 an acre in Direct Counter Cyclical payments. If the crop price falls below $X I get Loan Deficency Payments. If it's in CRP I was getting $42 an acre. Aren't we renting all cropland? We're making payments on every acre out there not just CRP it's important to realize this. If you farm 1500 acres which is common your DCP was around $36,000. And you had no CRP, bad water, no wildlife, and didn't let anyone hunt. Is this what we want, because we DO get what we pay for. If we can hunt any acres we make payments on I can hunt every acre of cropland in the US, well almost some farms are nonparticipating about 1%. When you see that commodity programs alone are spending $64 billion with another $55 billion for crop insurance ($119 billion) and CRP/WRP gets $26 billion don't some bells ring.

---

All I'm going to say is "huh?" But thanks for pointing out that the taxpayer has rented $26 billion worth of land that he has no access to.

You are comparing a "price/production" guaranteed program to the CRP program. I have reread all the previous posts and never did I read anywhere where it was mentioned that any farmer who recieved a government payment, should have his land opened to the public. Please in the future, it would be great if everyone would take time to read and understand the topic at hand.

For those who would like, I have posted below what the CRP program is. Please take special note that the CRP agreement is considered a "rental" agreement. I don't think most people realize this. The information below is taken directly, word for word from the USDA's own HSOforum.

Overview

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is a voluntary program for agricultural landowners. Through CRP, you can receive annual rental payments and cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving covers on eligible farmland.

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) makes annual rental payments based on the agriculture rental value of the land, and it provides cost-share assistance for up to 50 percent of the participant's costs in establishing approved conservation practices. Participants enroll in CRP contracts for 10 to 15 years.

Benefits

CRP protects millions of acres of American topsoil from erosion and is designed to safeguard the Nation's natural resources. By reducing water runoff and sedimentation, CRP protects groundwater and helps improve the condition of lakes, rivers, ponds, and streams. Acreage enrolled in the CRP is planted to resource-conserving vegetative covers, making the program a major contributor to increased wildlife populations in many parts of the country.

CRP Administration

FSA administers CRP, while technical support functions are provided by:

USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NCRCS);

USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service;

State forestry agencies;

Local soil and water conservation districts;

Private sector providers of technical assistance.

CRP General Sign-up

Producers can offer land for CRP general sign-up enrollment only during designated sign-up periods. For information on upcoming sign-ups, contact your local FSA office. To find your local office, visit FSA's Web site at:

CRP Continuous Sign-up

Environmentally desirable land devoted to certain conservation practices may be enrolled at any time under CRP continuous sign-up. Certain eligibility requirements still apply, but offers are not subject to competitive bidding. Further information on CRP continuous sign-up is available in the FSA fact sheet "Conservation Reserve Program Continuous Sign-up."

Eligible Producers

To be eligible for CRP enrollment, a producer must have owned or operated the land for at least 12 months prior to close of the CRP sign-up period, unless:

The new owner acquired the land due to the previous owner's death;

The ownership change occurred due to foreclosure where the owner exercised a timely right or redemption in accordance with state law; or

The circumstances of the acquisition present adequate assurance to FSA that the new owner did not require the land for the purpose of placing it in CRP.

Eligible Land

To be eligible for placement in CRP, land must be either:

Cropland (including field margins) that is planted or considered planted to an agricultural commodity 4 of the previous 6 crop years from 1996 to 2001, and which is physically and legally capable of being planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity; or

Certain marginal pastureland that is suitable for use as a riparian buffer or for similar water quality purposes.

Additional Cropland Requirements

In addition to the eligible land requirements, cropland must meet one of the following criteria:

Have a weighted average erosion index of 8 or higher;

Be expiring CRP acreage; or

Be located in a national or state CRP conservation priority area.

CRP Payments

FSA provides CRP participants with annual rental payments, including certain incentive payments, and cost-share assistance:

Rental Payments - In return for establishing long-term, resource-conserving covers, FSA provides annual rental payments to participants. FSA bases rental rates on the relative productivity of the soils within each county and the average dry land cash rent or cash-rent equivalent. The maximum CRP rental rate for each offer is calculated in advance of enrollment. Producers may offer land at that rate or offer a lower rental rate to increase the likelihood that their offer will be accepted.

Maintenance Incentive Payments - CRP annual rental payments may include an additional amount up to $4 per acre per year as an incentive to perform certain maintenance obligations.

Cost-share Assistance - FSA provides cost-share assistance to participants who establish approved cover on eligible cropland. The cost-share assistance can be an amount not more than 50 percent of the participants' costs in establishing approved practices.

Other Incentives - FSA may offer additional financial incentives of up to 20 percent of the annual payment for certain continuous sign-up practices.

Ranking CRP Offers

Offers for CRP contracts are ranked according to the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). FSA collects data for each of the EBI factors based on the relative environmental benefits for the land offered. Each eligible offer is ranked in comparison to all other offers and selections made from that ranking. FSA uses the following EBI factors to assess the environmental benefits for the land offered:

Wildlife habitat benefits resulting from covers on contract acreage;

Water quality benefits from reduced erosion, runoff, and leaching;

On-farm benefits from reduced erosion;

Benefits that will likely endure beyond the contract period;

Air quality benefits from reduced wind erosion; and

Cost.

For More Information

For more information on CRP, contact your local FSA office.

[kobear]

Your comments previously Augusta,

"But thanks for pointing out that the taxpayer has rented $26 billion worth of land that he has no access to."

""Lease the land" Haven't we as taxpayers already done that by signing a lease agreement (CRP Contract)?"

"The CRP program has cost the taxpayers a huge amount of money, and without some type of access program, I will vote to put the money into programs that will give ALL taxpayers equal access just like the WMA'S."

"I am also disheartned when I ask for permission to hunt the CRP, I am denied due to "only my family hunts there", or "I have it leased to someone", or " I don't let people hunt my land". As a taxpayer who is paying the farmer "rent" on this land in the form of a CRP payment, I get a little "rankled" by the fact that as a taxpayer, I've been paying this farmer to have his own private "hunting" preserve. Now many of you may disagree with that statment, but put in in perpective, we the taxpayers are "renting" this land through a lease type program, but we have no rights to the land even though we have it rented."

It definitely sounds like you believe the public deserves access to these acres BECAUSE a payment is made on them. THEREFORE we should have access to any acres a payment is made on right? Why just CRP acres that give us side benefits like clean water, wildlife, carbon storage etc.and not GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED AG acres? Exactly who do you work for Augusta? Let me guess you are paid by farmers to run economic simulations. How many farmers in CRP pay you?

And the government paid 119 Billion on land I have no access to, and it only killed more fish .

[Hammer Handle]

(clap clap)

A round of applause for kobear. I was thinking the same thing, but didn't know how to word it.

I think I am going to speed home now. And I better not get a ticket, for I pay that officer's salary!

Hmmm, I have no kids...but I pay taxes for school. I think I am going to enroll my dog as I do pay taxes!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Don't support the CRP program if you want or wish for it to change, that is your right.

But, don't get mad for you can't use the land directly and others can even though you "rent" the land through taxes. There are many indirect ways this CRP land is helping MN and its residents and wildlife. The sad thing is, much of it is "going away" and the impact could be great.

Allowing public access and giving the farmer more $$ may help...but I really don't think so. How many land owners apply for a turkey license and check the little box that says they will open their land to other turkey hunters?

[CodyDawg]

I didnt bother reading this whole thread, but here is the deal. CRP was a payment for a specific purpose and that purpose does not include hunter access. If hunter access is tied to it, many people will not enroll in CRP. Also, CRP is a federal program....do you really want the feds involved in state hunter access programs? I dont. Separate the programs. CRP is CRP and hunter access is hunter access.

[Dotch]

Quote:

---

I didnt bother reading this whole thread, but here is the deal. CRP was a payment for a specific purpose and that purpose does not include hunter access. If hunter access is tied to it, many people will not enroll in CRP. Also, CRP is a federal program....do you really want the feds involved in state hunter access programs? I dont. Separate the programs. CRP is CRP and hunter access is hunter access.

---

Bravo! Even without reading the whole thing, you summed it up about as concisely as it could be done. Get the feds involved and it's more apt to be one size fits all for each state. Might work in ND where land values don't fluctuate as wildly from area to area. However, in a state as diverse as MN, offering the same incentive to a guy whose land is valued at $4000 per acre versus one whose land is valued at half that won't fly. There was an article not too long ago about what the DNR was considering proposing but can't place where I saw it. Maybe Outdoor Snooze.

[Hammer Handle]

I am willing to bet that 80% of people enrolled in CRP will drop out if it allowed hunter access without permission...no matter what amount of $$ increase was proposed.

Anyway, many people are getting out now too. More money for crops and people are not being enrolled. Especially in Douglas and Ottertail County.

This could greatly impact the pheasant and turkey population...but we will have to see.

[sparcebag]

Going back under the plow

Tom Cherveny West Central Tribune

Published Saturday, November 24, 2007

WILLMAR — Farmers in west central Minnesota are not rushing to convert Conservation Reserve Program lands back into crop production as fast as some had feared, but a significant amount of acres are being converted.

The Farm Service Agency is estimating that state-wide, farmers have renewed contracts on about 85 percent of the acres that were up for renewal on Sept. 30, said Greg Anderson, conservation director for the Minnesota FSA office.

The Agency estimates that contracts on roughly 382,000 acres were up for renewal, and that over 317,000 of the acres were either re-enrolled under new contracts for 10 years or extended for lesser periods.

The Conservation Reserve Program makes possible this buffer strip along a Renville County ditch south of Bird Island. Some farmers are not renewing CRP contracts and returning the lands to crop production due to higher corn and soybean prices. It is also becoming harder to interest farmers in enrolling new lands in CRP. Despite the offer of bonuses, a recent effort to interest farmers in the Shakopee Creek watershed in Kandiyohi County to enroll lands for ditch buffers found no takers. (Tribune photo by Tom Cherveny)

RELATED CONTENT

Add a comment

Tom Cherveny Archive

Although it varies county-by-county, it is believed that farmers in the nine-county area around Willmar are re-enrolling acres at roughly the same rate as the state average. The counties include Big Stone, Chippewa, Kandiyohi, Lac qui Parle, Meeker, Pope, Renville, Swift, and Yellow Medicine.

The enrollment of marginal farmlands in the popular conservation program is credited with improving the outdoor environment of the region. CRP acres of perennial grasses and cover provide habitat for wildlife and reduce the nutrients and erosion reaching waterways.

There’s no overstating the value of CRP lands to wildlife in the region.

“It’s extremely important,’’ said Jeff Miller, assistant wildlife manager with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in Willmar.

Miller remembers making annual, summertime roadside surveys of pheasants and driving for 25 miles before he’d spot a ringneck. Since the introduction of CRP, the numbers of pheasants in the county has rebounded dramatically, he noted.

A spike in corn prices this year, followed by greatly improved prices for soybeans and wheat as well, has led many to worry. They have feared that farmers would not renew contracts and put the CRP grasslands back into row crop production.

That’s exactly what is being seen in many areas, particularly to the west, according to Matt Holland, director of conservation for Pheasants Forever in Minnesota. Holland recently returned from a hunting trip to the Watertown, S.D., area. Everywhere he traveled in eastern South Dakota, he saw evidence of CRP grasslands having been plowed and prepared for crop production.

In this region, the CRP renewal period that ended Sept. 30 shows that the conversion rate isn’t as dramatic.

A case in point is Lac qui Parle County, where contracts for nearly 3,000 CRP acres expired on Sept. 30. Farmers re-enrolled or extended contracts on 2,520 acres, reported Don Tweet, director of the FSA office in Lac qui Parle County. He said 480 acres were not renewed.

Another area county with sizeable amounts of CRP acreage is Pope County.

There were 3,156.5 acres of CRP land up for renewal on Sept. 30 in Pope County. Some 1,512.2 acres — or nearly half — were not renewed, but the net loss in conservation lands is not nearly as large as these numbers would indicate, according to Grant Herfindahl, FSA director in the county.

Herfindahl stated that 868 acres of land were added in an earlier, general sign-up period for the program. Also, farmers enrolled another 341.7 acres in the Continuous Conservation Reserve Program.

As a result, the net loss of lands in conservation programs in the county totals 302.5 acres.

Pope County has nearly 50,000 acres enrolled in CRP, so even the loss of 1,500 acres only equates to a three percent loss, he added.

Statewide, there are 1,767,958.7 acres of land enrolled in CRP in total, according to Jim Meisenheimer with the FSA state office in St. Paul.

There are certain pockets in the state where significant CRP acreage was not renewed on Sept. 30, according to Anderson.

But overall, he said “we have not seen any big drop off.’’

A variety of factors come into play, but Anderson said it’s apparent that many landowners are using the program for its intended purpose: “Farm the best and buffer the rest.’’

He said most of the CRP acres are marginal lands, and consequently farmers are cautious about putting those lands back into production despite higher commodity prices. Most know the perils of adding to their production costs when banking on expectations of continued, high-commodity prices.

Nonetheless, there is no question that the improved prices for Minnesota’s main crops are influencing decisions on conservation programs. It is proving more difficult to interest farmers in enrolling new lands in conservation programs, said the DNR’s Miller.

He works with three different watershed groups, including the Shakopee Creek Headwaters Project. It has been offering bonuses to farmers willing to enroll lands in conservation programs to serve as buffer and filter strips for waterways. Despite the incentives and an advertising campaign, there have been no takers, he said.

Holland also offers a note of caution as CRP lands come up for renewal in 2008 and the years beyond. He is hoping that the new farm bill now under debate in Congress will continue to provide the incentives needed, or the loss of CRP acres will only increase.

Pheasant numbers in Minnesota are at a 40-year high. There is no question that CRP has played the biggest role in making that possible, said Holland. If farmers continue to convert more CRP land into production, the losses will be felt by all wildlife. Holland said that the loss of one-third or one-fourth of the CRP land in the state would have a “significant,’’ adverse impact on the populations of wildlife.

[grab the net]

That is good news, I guess the sky isn't falling. I just saw quite abit in a concentrated area that I am familiar with. Overall we just have to hope for a good farm bill that promotes CRP usage.

[Pistol Pete]

I just recieved my propesed real estate tax papers for 2008. Crp contracts are for 10 or 15 years, flat rate payments. No increases. Next year the taxes go up on everything from a low of 12% to a high of 30.8%. Perhaps if crp contracts stepped up every 3 years or so people would stay in the programs longer. 12-30% is not cheap. Crp rates have not gone up that much in 10 years. More and more federal programs are being cut at the local level so more tax burden is being put upon the land locally to make up for it. There is no easy answer or one that everybody will agree on. But CRP does help bird and othe animal survive and gives them a place to rest and raise young. No matter how you feel about the program as sportmen and women we should ALL support it, like it or not. Wouldn't it be nice if the anti's spent there money on habitat instead of harassment?? They spend millions trying to stop us from hunting but I never see them spend on habatit. Instead of us hashing at each other lets stand beside each other and fight the real enemy. Crp does help wildlife. Without it things will not get better. If you do not own the land in a crp contract do not expext to have access to it either. Yes you are renting it but you do not own it. If and when I can retire and do rent my farm out the renter will not have hunting rights. He has the right to farm the land, not hunt it. Crp is the same. It is farmed in grass, but no hunting rights. You may not like it and if you don't then complain to the right people and get the law changed. I gaurantee you there will be acreage lost in the program. Have a program where you have a option to let hunters access the crp and it will work. Especially with incentives for access.

[sparcebag]

Pistol could'nt have said it better! I've already contacted officials to support CRP.I have no land to put in the program,I dont farm.But I do support the land owners rights to control their own land.A knock on a door to ask is not out of my way,its to my benefit,I may make a friend.And YES CRP should have payments that do increase with cost of living!! Its only fair!