|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 29, 2005 20:48:02 GMT -6
Sounds like under the new farm bill the CRP enrollment will be cut down to 50% or so of what is enrolled now!!! What will that do to your state as far as wildlife numbers? I forsee alot less game birds, deer being hit harder in states with less cover and furbearers declining some as well.
The main thing will be a big drop in many states from non residents and the small towns that make a living from these visiting hunters, also more pay to hunt could be seen as well. Your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by MickMcLaughlin on Nov 30, 2005 0:41:30 GMT -6
It's not good,that's a fact.I won't cry if every deer in Kansas is dead,but it sure won't help any other wildlife either and I hate to see that.
Kansas is being ruined by leased land already.I never thought it was fair when kansas didn't alow out of state deer hunters,but man I wish the old days were back.It is freakin'silly what people pay to kill an overgrown goat and it starts tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Nov 30, 2005 4:45:16 GMT -6
glad I have no intentions of being there for a long time yet mick. I have landowners tell me they SELL their landowner permit to an out of stater for 5 grand, like you say, to kill a frigging bad tasting goat. and that lease ground has ruined trapping untill feb 1st as even all the bird ground is leased. back to the subject on crp, going to hit coyotes and cats both hard. still, I love kansas and can`t wait to get back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2005 6:14:25 GMT -6
It's not just Kansas with the leased land deals. Last few years here in NY have seen alot of actiivty on the pay to hunt concept. Most people don't realize it but NY is mostly rural. Only thing is, we are also one of the highest taxed if not the highest taxed and regulated states in the nation. There are alot of farms going under here. Farming is just not profitable here anymore. There are quite a few rich guys who lease up farmland that is left to hunt the damn deer. They want to manage it "for trophy whitetail hunting" they say . My brother and I were aproached on leasing our property for this just last week by an individual who is a large corporate farmer with ties to these type individuals. Our land was last farmed by us partime over twenty years ago. It is quite grown up to say the least. We have developed it for our own hunting, and enjoy very good hunting. This guy said he wanted to farm it, that there were CRP monies available for the fallow land and subsidies available for improvments to put the land back into production This of course was bullshit as I know that would take alot of money and very serious time with very big machines for that to happen. The most this property ever had in production, was about 45 out of a little over 100 acres that was tillable. No one now would ever spend the money to farm that much land. Enjoy it while you can cause your GOOD opportunities and good old days are dwindling. I hate to say it but I, believe that here in NY and much of the east, because of this, and the disney mentality that is prevelant here. We will have only very regulated licensed ADC trapping and pay hunting for mostly deer and turkey, in a few more years. You will be shut out except for what precious little public land that is still huntable, unless you have money or connections.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Nov 30, 2005 8:17:34 GMT -6
in 3 years, there will be another farm bill..
always is.
trouble with CRP, is that too much land is put into the program that should not be. You need to farm land for 3 years- then it can be taken out of production and put into set aside programs. What happens is that land that should not be plowed, should not be put into production (and either never was or hasn't been in production for decades) is "farmed" for 3 years, then it qualifies to be in a 15 year program at the tax payers expense.
I do hope the next bill, recognises this and makes qualifying harder- set asides are good programs if not abused.
|
|
|
Post by CoonDuke on Nov 30, 2005 8:25:59 GMT -6
I agree Steve.
|
|
|
Post by thefoxtrapper on Nov 30, 2005 9:01:31 GMT -6
nearly all sizeable land is leased here, and i mean alot of it, it is a nightmare trying to line up a sizeable line because always this place or that place and 10 others dont work out the same week the other 10 do, it lightens up in january but still rabbit hunters out and a few bird hunters, just a conflict of land use and no way around it except to work around them because they pay for the land and I wont pay a dime to trap, w
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 30, 2005 9:29:28 GMT -6
Tman all the "farm" programs are abused by some, jsut the way it is. Problem with the CRP is it brought bird numbers up 4 fold in many states!!!! Your going to see them come down in a big way over the next 5 years!!!!
I would rather have the advantage taken on CRP than many other farm programs at least this one benefits wildlife more than any other. It will be harder to enroll but you will still have those with large land tracts work the system. All farm programs are at the tax payers exspense, do I agree with it all? NO Way but this is one program that really helped wildlife, many species benefitted from the move of CRP and we will all see the otherside of this onece again. I worry about the small towns and the loss of revenue from out of state and in state hunters, bird numbers drop and guys won't be willing to spend the $$$$ on out of state hunting trips, meaning small communities suffer. Also look at a state like Iowa, fairly easy in most parts to be granted permission to bird hunt, compaired to others and with the loss revenue from CRP the more inclined these farmers will be to go to pay to hunt!!! Then instead of all taxpayers the sportsman will foot the biggest share of the bill, while the bird watchers and wildlife photographers and all who enjoy the rewards get off cheaper.
As far as taxpayer waste goes, there are many other sources that eat up far more tax payers dollars than the CRP program and give you little if any benefit! At least the CRP program has helped the wildlife and saved some top soils!!!!
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Nov 30, 2005 9:52:35 GMT -6
Steve and others are correct. The CRP program is considerably cheaper for the US taxpayer to let sensitive and erodible land to be set aside instead of cropped. We have pay out huge commodity payments and there is more income for that land to be cropped (sales of seed, chemical and fertilizer and crop) plus government payments on wheat, beans, sorghum,corn and barley would pay the farmer of the land more than the CRP payments typically are. It is the landowner that holds the key for CRP if the program is available. They can decide if less payment and better conservation are more important than maximizing dollars. If the land owners follow the golden rule of capitalism just as many trappers do,follow the cats and otters and let the worthless coons , grinners and reds go they will be attracted to the higher economic return. The large agriculture sales companies really lobby hard to minimize set aside land and maximize crop land and government payments they make money selling inputs not paying taxes to set land aside. Wildlife benefits from CRP and so does the average US citizen. The rural communities that have a lot of set aside acres would probably benefit economically more if the land was cropped as they would have more local business and thus more jobs and money being spent. Right now the income gained by having even a couple thousand out of state bird hunters will not come close to what would be spent to crop the land. Not saying good, just stating what the actual facts are.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 30, 2005 10:52:28 GMT -6
Bryce interesting how do you figure a large farming operation bringing in more jobs and dollars than a couple thousand out of state bird hunters? What do you think the economic impact of non resident hunters are to states like Iowa and South Dakota the 2 big bird states? Also compute in deer as well.
Out are way the wheat is harvested by large commercial operations that higher mexicans and most are illegals to bring in the wheat crops or they have these commercial combine companys that travel north to south getting in the wheat.
I can tell you of many that scam the whole system, by upping their yields on ground and truck wheat in from other parts to get a better yield per acre, then once established this is the price paid by the fed government, they then have these mexicans come in and plant willy nilly, saving on seed,fertilizer, fuel cost and might take 11 bushel to the acre and have there yield set at 30 bushel to the acre on the fed gov payment. Easy money, then turn around and sell the land at times stating a 30 bushel to the acre yield and sell the ground for much more than they paid, and knowing full well it would take an act of god to get 30+ bushel to the acre on this ground most years. Then plow it up 16,000 acres and nothing for the wildlife to have for winter, I would much rather have them leave it along go back to natural praire grasses and have 20 fold value to the wildlife than a barren wheat field. At a much smaller cost to the taxpayer than the bushel scam payments being made!
|
|
|
Post by Dusty on Nov 30, 2005 11:25:48 GMT -6
if not abusedWho administers the program again? You were expecting... Why is it that we, as a nation, EXPECT the Feds to protect (ie, subsidize every aspect of their lives) farmers? Does anyone actually think the family farm is being protected? It isn't. You become a corporation, you have a lot of Daddy's money to spend, or you end up choking marten in AK. Properly done (native grass, which better supports native rodents and birds, would be a good start....), a program like CRP would have my full support. That won't happen in my lifetime. www.ewg.org/farm/region.php?fips=48000
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 1, 2005 18:30:11 GMT -6
I would think that states like Iowa and SD- would provide their own set aside programs if the bird hunting is that important to them.
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Dec 1, 2005 18:36:44 GMT -6
everyone likes uncles money better, especially the low population states. the rub is then uncle wants to give them wolves too and it`s hard to say yes to the money but not the wolves. uncle runs a package deal and that is the problem if you get dependant on him for your every need, pretty soon he smells like 3 day old fish and won`t leave unless he takes all the money with him too.
|
|
|
Post by coyote on Dec 1, 2005 18:47:09 GMT -6
I wouldn't mind them bribing the states' legislators so much as I mind them EXTORTING the states to do their bidding...
"you'll either [insert ridiculous federal mandate here], or we'll withold the money we force you to confiscate on our behalf"
examples? seatbelt laws, dui blood alcohol levels, drinking ages, speed limits, gun-free school zones, ad nauseum
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 1, 2005 21:41:30 GMT -6
Tman SD already has that program called walk in areas!!!! Paid for by ALL hunters who purchase a license. Iowa sadly has no such program. "Uncle" got started way back with Social Security,food stamps, and welfare, so while these help the ones using it or scamming it, at least CRP lands get multi use benefit as long as the tax payers are paying for things I much rather see my money go for the benefit beyond the end user!
CRP produces alot of wildlife and to have 50% gone, I just hope those states with big enrollments are ready to face the short commings of it being gone. If their is no monetary benefit it will all get planted that can't be enrolled and then it will ALL be subsidised at the exspense of wildlife, so the money won't be saved it will be switched from the CRP program to the grain payment program. Then come fall all will be tilled or chisel plowed and the loosers will still be the sportsman while we continue to pay for it !!!
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Dec 1, 2005 23:06:22 GMT -6
TC 35 I am not saying I like the idea of losing the 50% CRP but your several thousand out of state bird hunters do not provide the economic stimulus that the land would if cropped and most importantly the lobby groups that have the power are not NRCS, Pheasants Forever etc. versus ADM, Car-gill,Exxon etc. A what if, if you will 100,000 acres of CRP Pays 50 million in CRP payments per year at $ 50 per acre. Those 100,000 acres draw 2,000 out of state bird hunters at $1,000 per hunter or $20 million. Total gross value $70 million. Half is now cropped and rented for $50 an acre so you still have $50 million in land value. Bird hunters are cut in half or you now have $10 million. That is $60 million instead of $70 million. Now you have 50,000 acres of wheat, corn and bean, (easter SD) Average crop value would be about $250 per acre or 12.50 Million. Government Payments of say an average of $40 per acre or $2 million. Crop inputs to raise the crop at $150 per acre or $7.5 million. Say 1 $20,000 job per 1 million of gross or 25 jobs or .5 million. You now have about $90 million of economic activity. I am not saying it is the best it is just the way it is. I have down played the total rent and gross crop value a lot to make this look closer than it actually is also. The conservation groups just do not have the lobby and or political power to swing lots of legislation. Sad but true. With the huge budget deficits the conservation programs are the one cut out of each budget every time. Probably the big losers in this whole CRP land reduction will be the large operations that go out and lease the land from the landowners and then book and outfit the hunts. That money may not be spent locally either. It is all about what puts the most money and or economic activity the closest to the local area. Crop inputs and sales are the most likely to do that. The right mix would be mixing the CRP within the cropped land to maximize the food sources while providing the shelter and safe nesting habitats. I am sure that 50% loss of CRP will not cost you 50% of your out of state birders. The bigger loss is returning that sensitive land back to surplus crops and polluting more water and ground water.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 2, 2005 7:02:20 GMT -6
Yes bryce, but 100,000 x50 per acre would be 5 million correct? I know I'm not worried just about the bird hunters all wildlife will be impacted and yes in Iowa that is how alot of it is set up, corn or beans next to a 100 acre patch of crp, alot of big mature whitetails get produced that way and a ton of pheasants, and mice and many other species as well. Out west you have larger tracts and less row crops to begin with so more will get grazed and then the drought and you have ground with about zero value for much until the rains come back!
Alot of grazing rental goes very cheap because it has too!So the crp helps keep these grass areas from being over grazed by paying more and giving value back to many people. It will cause some people to loose alot of income from hunting revenues lost due to lower populations of wildlife, that is just a fact. The only ones to benefit I see will be the prairie dog hunters LOL! More room for the dogs to expand with all the grazed off pasture ground taken out of CRP!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 2, 2005 7:40:17 GMT -6
maybe if all federal land was allowed to revert to nature instead of being overgrased by grant ranching....
CPR has come and gone for 50+ years- like all farm bills, it will be renewed. If qualifications are harder to prevent fraud- great!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 2, 2005 9:25:15 GMT -6
You never going to prevent fraud unless your doing mandatory inspections of ALL lands, and even then those that can manipulate the system will continue to do so, short of taking away all programs you will have some fraud!!!! I have yet to see a federal assitance program of ANY kind go fraud free!!!!! Too much loop holes in these programs, I beleive set up that way to keep portions of the voters happy!
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Dec 2, 2005 9:46:34 GMT -6
Sad truths are that rural communities can not make a living income unless they are subsidized. That subsidy is either government or private through leasing etc. Really sad that producing commodities to feed the World is just a break even deal and I either wait for the government check or hope the WI, MI, guys didn't lose their jobs this year and want to spend a week chasing birds in my sloughs. Huge tracts of CRP are not your highest carrying capacity habitat for game that draws money. The crop, CRP interaction on the smaller tracts with more edge will give you more game birds, rabbits deer etc. thus more coon and yotes. The reason that CRP is valuable is that in those more sensitive areas with drier land and or over grazing potential it stopped the abuse of the land. Greed, lack of knowledge or just plan poor management is why CRP is and was needed. BMPs on land use would have created a better overall environment for human and wildlife interactive use but in this all or nothing World with people begging for safety valves when they find out the screwed it up is where we are today. CRP teaches nothing about good stewardship. What will the land and cropping practices be when it is cropped again? Improved and environmentally sound or where the most $s per acre are until we have the next best subsidized alternative? I would much rather see landowners cropping smarter leasing out their own smaller tracts for hunting then to set the land aside, collect a check and sub lease to someone who manages huge tracts of hunting leases for his gain and adds no value to the resource management.
Bryce
|
|