# Do we really need crp?



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

just kidding. well, i thought that would catch your attention. we NEED it and recent acceptance rates sucked. found this on the game and fish site...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Input Sought on Future of CRP 112404 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency is seeking public input regarding the future of the highly successful Conservation Reserve Program. The deadline for providing written comments is Dec. 8, 2004.

According to Greg Link, assistant wildlife chief for the North Dakota Game and Fish Department, it is essential that hunters and wildlife enthusiasts get involved and take this opportunity to provide their views on the future of CRP. "North Dakota's deer population is at record highs, pheasant numbers rival the boom years of the 1940s, and waterfowl fall flights continue to hold well over the long-term average," Link said. "It's easy for our hunting public to connect the dots and see that CRP is a big reason why wildlife populations have been increasing or holding steady."

The 3.35 million acres of CRP in North Dakota have carried their weight in providing bountiful wildlife habitat, Link said, as well as delivering other significant environmental benefits, such as improved water quality and reduced wind and soil erosion. "Wildlife enthusiasts must be careful not to take the nation's most successful conservation program and its critical habitat base for granted," Link said.

As of 2007, 1.7 million - or more than half - of the state's CRP acreage is due to expire, and another million in the following two years. Nationwide, the scenario is quite similar. Between September 30, 2007, and through 2010, CRP contracts for more than 28.7 million acres are scheduled to expire.

According to announcements made in August, the Bush administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture are committed to full enrollment of CRP up to the authorized level of 39.2 million acres. To ensure that the environmental benefits of CRP continue, and because of the significant acreage expirations beginning in 2007, USDA will offer early re-enrollments and extensions of existing contracts to current CRP participants.

The expected contract expirations and re-enrollment or replacement of the expiring acreage represent a management challenge concerning: (1) CRP environmental objectives; (2) USDA staffing needs; and (3) technical service provider resources.

To help address these challenges and determine how best to proceed, the Commodity Credit Corporation invites interested persons to submit comments on this issue. The preferred manner to submit comments is via the internet at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/crpcomments/. However, comments may also be submitted by email at [email protected]; or by writing to: Director, Conservation and Environmental Programs Division, Farm Service Agency, Room 4714-S, Stop 0513, 1400 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-0513.


----------



## Scraper (Apr 1, 2002)

Folks, make sure to let these guys know how important CRP is to us.

Also, stress the importance of the wildlife value of CRP, currently there are a lot of acres that should be enrolled in the CRaP program. They desparately need some freshening up with diverse grasses and food plots.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Access for the little guy is a problem all over the U.S. and because this is a nation wide program I think there should be a way to tie in solving the access problem and the amount of federal dollars that are pumped into the CRP program. Incentives as part of the per acre payment to promote public access would benefit all those involved. There are restrictions on all people who accept federal dollars and so if enrolling in the Federal CRP program would require restictions for a higher per acre payment but promote public access it would serve a dual purpose and seeing how well the PLOTS program is working as a pilot program it is proving beyond a doubt that it is a very workable program. There is no reason that these federal dollars can't benefit a more diversified group of people. Hearin lies the solution to the problems involved with being a little guy in what is becoming a rich man's game. This program allows the right to retrict access but at a lower per acre payment. It will help to promote federal dollars to compliment the PLOTS program. This is a win/win program for land owners and hunters. PLOTS works, we have proven that!!!! Now lets get the Federal dollars to expand the program!!!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> This program allows the right to restrict access but at a lower per acre payment.


My only question about this statement (and I love it personally) is...would landowners continue to put land into CRP? I am not a landowner so I don't know, but I do know that CRP is *VITAL* to our hunting!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Sure they would but there would also be a federal incentive to allow access. There is no reason why we have to generate all the monies for the PLOTS program at a local level. The CRP payment comes from all people through our federal tax struture and so this would be an incentive to allow all people to enjoy the benefits of the CRP program. I am not advocating eliminating the CRP program for those that don't allow access but only providing another incentive to those that do. This is the fundamental basis behind our state run PLOTS program. Less payment for those that don't and more payment for those that do. PLOTS works!!!! Federal dollars to compliment state dollars for solving access problems is a win/win situation for the landowners and the hunters. Both will reap the rewards.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Who do you think is making the money here? The programs that are started by F&G are there to make money for them. The more acres they can get into the programs the more hunting licenses they can sell. Maybe if we loose abunch of our CRP we will also loose abunch of R/ NR hunters, we won't need caps or zones or other restrictions anymore. CRP is an artificial light at the end of the tunnel.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Please explain your logic?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> CRP is an artificial light at the end of the tunnel.


That is my logic.... do not rely upon what is artificial. The more acres available the more licenses sold, and the more need for caps and restrictions or face the depletion of ND wildlife.

When one hand is heavy the other hand feels light!!!!


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

And are you advocating the elimination of the CRP program??


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

No... it is eliminating itself. I enjoy the benefits as much as anyone, I just know that more money will come along and change everything again and again anyway. In the areas that have alot of CRP, it has affected land prices and renting land prices, this is keeping beginner farmer/ranchers out of the business making it fertile ground for corporate farms to come in and buy everything up.

It is inevitable that most or all dryland farmland will be back into production driven by the lack of water in the southern irrigated states. That is a huge scale but that is what is going on. We have water above and below ground in ND and it will be our greatest asset in years to come. What is sown and harvested has always been directly related to supply and demand. When the demand for more food comes along we will be in the drivers seat.

I think clubs will always be able to raise and release birds to shoot and the cattail slews will always be there. Nature is huge and I don't think we can direct it's course as much as we would like to think.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

And you would be one of the first ones screaming down the line when you had to struggle to find one pheasant or deer. I started hunting in the mid 70's. No CRP and because of the good price on wheat, farmers were plowing under every sq foot of land they could. Pastures, sloughs and shelterbelts were decimated. Habitat was small pockets of isolated cover with little winter feed. At that time you had to work hard all day to see a couple of deer per day and most of the bucks were lucky to have a 6 point, 10 or 12' spread. Now I probably see at least 4-5 bucks on any given day. Sharptails were unheard of in the NW part of the state until the CRP came. My father and grandfather claim to have had it even worse. They claim in the 50s and 60s if you saw a couple of deer the whole season you were doing pretty good. I don't mind busting my butt for game but I enjoy seeing game more than shooting it. I'd rather spend a day flushing 25 birds out of range than 1 or 2 in range, but thats just me. What I would like to see is federal dollars go toward the purchase of much of the CRP eligible land but I don't see it happening. You don't make money selling land you make money buying it. At least that is what most farmers tell us. CRP is probably doing more for economic development in ND than farming that land could, at this point.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

DJRooster said:


> Sure they would but there would also be a federal incentive to allow access. There is no reason why we have to generate all the monies for the PLOTS program at a local level.


Whatever happened to Dorgan's "Open Fields" bill? Anyone know?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

You'll not hear me scream, I hope to stay ahead of the giant wheel of progress.

ds2 wrote:



> CRP is probably doing more for economic development in ND than farming that land could, at this point


It probaly would if the majority of land was owned by locals that stay home all winter. Alot is owned by people who either do not live here anymore or are retired and vacation out of state for 5 months out of the year.


----------



## dleier (Aug 28, 2002)

http://www.fsa.usda.gov/crpcomments/

bump. Dec 8 is deadline to submit. It doesnt take long to do. If you have. Thank you.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

Dakotashooter said "Sharptails were unheard of in the NW part of the state until the CRP came"

I have news for ya. We had awesome Sharptail hunting in the NW part of ND since my first hunt in 1973. The population was hurt in the Late 70's early 80's with the oil boom, but you could still get birds every trip IF you knew the country. I haven't seen many grouse in the last ten years in the crp we walk for pheasants. I tend to find the grouse more in the native grass's. I do believe the CRP has helped them in thier nesting though.

Don't take this the wrong way, I just wanted to state MY opinion.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

if you have ever been in Northern Kidder County you will understand that CRP has greatly affected the migration routes of the ducks and geese thru that area. The fields that once bolstered acres of feed now harbor grasses 3-4 feet tall. Thus birds push on further south or hang up north longer.

I am not saying that CRP is necessarily a bad thing, but it can affect the habitat in many different ways.


----------

