# CRP Phasing Out



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/print/2007/02/05/1
Allison Winter, E&ENews PM reporter
The Bush administration wants to put a hold on the nation's largest land retirement program next year, in response to soaring prices for grains and land brought on by the ethanol boom.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said today he wants to eliminate a general sign-up for the Conservation Reserve Program and the Conservation Security Program in 2007 and 2008.

Johanns said the proposal on CRP, which pays to idle working farmland, was due to the "need for increased corn production to meet demand."

"There doesn't seem to be a lot of doubt there is a lot of pressure out there," Johanns said. "The price of corn is very, very high. People are trying to make a decision on what they are going to do."

The demand for ethanol has pushed corn prices to record highs of over $4 per bushel, double the amount from two years ago. The climbing prices have started to place a strain on some livestock and food producers, and some groups have called for land to come out of CRP and into production.

Environmental and hunting groups have been pushing against any changes to CRP because of the benefits and habitat it provides to ducks, pheasants and other birds. USDA expects there would be 33.6 million acres enrolled in 2008, down from 36.1 million acres last year.

USDA chief economist Keith Collins said the decision would give farmers more time to decide if they want to plant any of the CRP land but also save the government money since it has to bid against the market for the per-acre payment.

"To run CRP, you have to pay the going rental rate for land, which is going up sharply, so it not only takes land away from commodity production, it also results in an inordinately expensive CRP," Collins said.

The fiscal 2008 budget request that the administration released today includes funding for CRP and the Conservation Security Program, but USDA officials said that would go toward ongoing contracts or deterred future sign-ups. The budget includes just over $2 billion for CRP and $316 million for CSP.

The administration would also put sign-ups on hold for the CSP, which pays farmers for environmental stewardship on working lands, and save the money for an increase in the program in 2009.

"What we are proposing is that we lay that funding over the life of the program and get the money out there faster," Johanns said. "This is one area where our proposal will do a lot of good."

Johanns said the structure of CSP calls for a big increase in spending in the eighth or ninth year of the program.

*******************************
Cherrie Nolden
Farm Bill Coordinator and Ag. Liaison
Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks
512 SE 25th Avenue
Pratt, KS 67124
(620) 672-0760 ph
(620) 672-2972 fax
[email protected]


----------



## Ande8183 (Sep 18, 2005)

Thanks for the article. I am in my senior year at the University of Minnesota, Crookston pursuing a degree in Natural Resource Management, and I sent this to a professor of mine. Tonight he shared it with the class (roughly 60 students) as an example of the issues we will face in the future. Just want to say thanks for the great article.

Nick


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I'm not a farmer but wouldn't the price of corn go down when there is greater supply? And then what happens when the technology enables the ethanol industry to use switch grass and doesn't need the corn any longer?

What happens to the hunting economy when the farmers plow under the CRP? What kind of pressure on the remaining acreas will there be when most of the CRP disappears.....the good old days are soon to be no more!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> .....the good old days are soon to be no more!


Yep read it and weep. That is why I'm against spending 2 million dollars on a youth bill. We have a bunch of land coming out in the next couple of years much of what is PLOTS. The PLOTS contracts are not perpetual they will expire. If you want to save PLOTS you are going to have to pay much more than we did before. Many producers would keep there land in CRP and PLOTS if they can get a higher rate. The game and fish will need to spend mucho bucks to accomplish that. We will also need to come up with a habitat stamp of some sort to help pay this or else kiss it good bye the choice is yours.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

If there were no leasing of land by outfitters we would not need plots. If the legislature had banned baiting it would of eventually opened several hundred acres of prime deer territory in my township alone, sadly it did not happen.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

adokken said:


> If there were no leasing of land by outfitters we would not need plots. If the legislature had banned baiting it would of eventually opened several hundred acres of prime deer territory in my township alone, sadly it did not happen.


Dream on buddy


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Breaks me heart to know that outfitters won't be able to double-dip anymore. Boo-hoo.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

tb said:


> Breaks me heart to know that outfitters won't be able to double-dip anymore. Boo-hoo.


Huh???? Care to elaborate your comment makes no sense at all


----------



## Ande8183 (Sep 18, 2005)

wow, this one could get out of hand very quickly.

I just dont understand why this crap comes up everytime. Some people just need another beer to settle downl


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I know this is probably heresy and I know the importance of CRP. But, in my mind the rise of commercial outfitters in ND is directly linked to the advent of CRP. It started in the Mott area. The outfitters out there took advantage of the CRP habitat. They leased gobs of acres and started fee hunting operations. After that, it spread across ND like a prairie fire.

When I say double-dip, I refer to landowners getting paid twice for doing nothing. They get over-market rent for the CRP plus they rent the same ground out for commercial hunting. About all they do after that is sit in the coffee shop and complain. Usually they complain about the farm program and hunters, their 2 sources of income. Go figure.

Now they'll have to make a decision, to leave the habitat and take the hunting income alone, or go back to work.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

tb, Its clear that you have a real hard on for outfitters, and that's fine that's your choice. To say landowners are getting paid for CRP for doing nothing is really far fetched. Whether you agree with the program or not it has been very beneficial to many things. Most importantly wildlife, and it didn't come free to landowners. tb currently land is renting for $70.00 to $100.00 an acre and CRP is paying $40.00. If we were getting double the rent rates CRP would not be in trouble. This is why PLOTS is in big trouble and if we want to save some we will need to pay a bunch more money. Now as far as us farmers complaining at the coffee shop? Well that is bred into us you can't get it out of us. Live with it tb, and I think you better start looking at farmers and CRP in a little different light.


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

:fiddle: oke:


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

The loss of CRP will only speed up a process that has been going on for a long time in many parts of the country but has only recently (about the last decade) become apparent in North Dakota. Wildlife is becoming a market driven commodity. Please bear with me as I digress a little bit here.

Wildlife populations in many areas of the country have been subsidized by the US taxpayer through various conservation programs. What has this subsidization done? It has kept the cost of "growing" wildlife cheap to the consumer (hunters). If and when CRP phases out and I'm pretty sure that it will phase out for the reasons that g/o has outlined previously (CRP payments compared to rental rates), hunters will be faced with the true price of hunting.

When this all plays out, hunters (mostly midwestern deer, upland and waterfowler hunters) will have one of two choices. Pony up the money to hunt wildlife on property where the land is managed to grow it or get out of hunting all together.

This decrease of wildlife will make the remaining wildlife even more valuable because of the increased demand. Those hunters who can barely afford to hunt now will get out of hunting all together and because of the greater cost, the proportion of those on the margin will be even larger. So in effect what you will see is a very large reduction in hunter numbers.

Those who can afford to pay outfitters or own their own hunting land won't care (except reduced populations of migratory game) and those who can't pay will be out of luck.

Those who fear European syle wildlife management need not fear. It is already a reality.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

G/O is 100% correct. That is why plots was a good option for land owners. They would get their $40 crp payment then add another $10 for PLOTS. So they would get a $50 payment. Now when rent prices were down...$50-$70 people had a choice make an extra $20 buck but then they would have the head ache some renters pose. Well now with corn at $4 per bushel they can raise some rent to $100 per acre. Now $50 more per acre people will deal with the head aches of renting. So they need to raise the PLOTS payments and that means an increase in the PLOTS fee.

That is why I have stated so many times that DNR and G&F need to use the funds that are available to them now.....Hunters $$. You will see more walk in programs (PLOTS, BLM, etc.) Hunters need to vote for dedicated fundings or walk in programs. They need to have license $$ go towards these things. Or the purchase of more State and Federal owned land. So it is a double edge sword. If you want more habitat and land people will have to pay more for license fees or stamp programs. But only time will tell. I think this next fall the market could be flooded with corn and we will see where the prices are then.


----------



## DeltaBoy (Mar 4, 2004)

February 14, 2007

*Delta Urges President Bush To Honor Promise to Hunters*

BISMARCK, N.D. Recent announcements from the Bush Administration regarding the Conservation Reserve Program could have a devastating impact on ducks and other wildlife, warns Delta Waterfowl President Rob Olson.

Widely considered one of the most successful conservation programs ever, CRP is reeling from a one-two combination of announcements out of Washington last week. First, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said his agency would offer no new CRP enrollments in 2007 and 2008. On the heels of that announcement, Johanns said the Bush administration may allow farmers to cancel existing CRP contracts to plant corn for ethanol production.

"Make no mistake, every CRP acre we lose in the Prairie Pothole Region of the United States will mean fewer ducks, pheasants and other game and non-game birds across the continent," said Olson in response to the announcements. "We encourage President Bush to honor his promise to hunters and conservationists to increase CRP acres."

Olson was referring to a 2004 press conference on a Minnesota farm when Bush met with officials from Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever and other conservation organizations and pledged to increase CRP enrollment.

CRP is a U.S. Department of Agriculture program that reduces soil and water erosion and provides valuable habitat for wildlife by compensating farmers for establishing grass cover on marginal, highly erodible lands under 10- or 15-year contracts.

Called "Noah's Arc for Wildlife" by the late director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mollie Beattie, CRP was established in 1985 and is credited for the explosion in continental duck numbers during the 1990s, the dramatic 20-year rise in pheasant populations and the restoration of many species of non-game birds.

Of the 36 million acres currently enrolled in CRP in the lower 48 states, about 28 million are set to expire between 2007 and 2010. Conservationists were openly concerned about CRP's future until President Bush's 2004 announcement that he had instructed the Farm Security Administration to fully enroll CRP at 39.2 million acres. The announcement was hailed as a grand slam for wildlife, conservation and the environment.

Among the many species of birds and animals that thrive in CRP's undisturbed grass cover, upland-nesting ducks like mallards, pintails, blue-winged teal, gadwalls and shovelers have been among the primary beneficiaries. During the wet cycle of 1990s, populations of those species rebounded from 1980's lows, several reaching record or near-record levels.

Research conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service confirmed that CRP contributed around 2 million birds to the fall flights of ducks each year between 1992 and 2004, and that number doesn't consider the year-to-year population growth when CRP-raised birds return to the breeding grounds in subsequent years.

"There's no doubt in anyone's mind how important CRP is to North American duck populations," says Olson. "Those big blocks of undisturbed cover are critical for upland-nesting ducks that are so vulnerable to predation in fragmented cover."

USFWS research also showed that wetlands embedded in CRP lands are more attractive to nesting ducks. Scientists don't yet understand why, but they suspect reduced sedimentation produces higher-quality wetlands. Small wetlands are critical for duck production because they provide essential nutrition for nesting hens.

CRP is popular with many farmers because it provides emergency livestock forage during droughts. Environmentalists support CRP because it effectively sequesters greenhouse gasses and reduces soil and water erosion.

"CRP is a win-win policy for farmers, ranchers and wildlife, and provides numerous environmental benefits as well," says Olson.

In recent months increased demand for corn to produce ethanol has prompted some to call for the release of CRP acres. Olson urges the administration to take a go-slow approach on the corn ethanol front.

"Farmers have been working for years to create a demand for corn to reduce surpluses and drive up prices," Olson says. "Increasing production would depress corn prices, and that's not in the best interest of our farmers.

"There are already hundreds of thousands of acres of land scheduled to come out of CRP this fall and those acres, coupled with new high-yielding hybrid seeds, should provide enough corn to meet demand until other technologies like cellulosic ethanol from native grasses can be developed.

"It would be a mistake to start plowing these fragile soils that aren't well suited to corn production in the first place."

Editors: For more information, contact Rob Olson at 1-877-667-5656 or John Devney at 1-888-987-3695


----------

