# And it Starts... CRP burning begins today



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Yesterday was the first day people could burn there CRP and they did. I feel sick to my stomach. uke: I watched one fire start up so I drove over to check it out. uke: I felt like crap as I watched deer, grouse, and pheasants just pile out of the field one after another. I don't want to make any farms mad but if it wasn't for government subsidies most of you wouldn't be farms. I hope they do away with that in the new farm bill. It will weed out all the bad farms. After that you will see all the HEL land and the other crap land that people broke up go back in to CRP or other programs in the future. But to all you guys out there that broke the crap land thanks a lot for ruining it for all the other ND residents. Not only are you killing wildlife but you are ruining air and water quality and soil health. Here's to the next Dust Bowl :beer: Good Job :thumb:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

FBS,

If you want CRP then you will have to pay. Who is going to put land into CRP for $40 an acre (my area) when cash rent is now over $100 an acre?
It's simple economics, supply and demand.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

The loss of CRP land will be a true devastion for wildlife. Much of the push for protecting CRP is made my the "duck" people/orgs. But, everyone knows ducks are only a fraction of the benefitting wildlife. Songbirds, ground nesting waterfowl, huns, sharps, pheasants, deer...the list goes on!

It will be interesting to see the effect on deer. The past 20 years or so of CRP has contributed greatly to overall deer numbers and the size of bucks. Once deer numbers and quality decline, I believe the loss of CRP will be more prevalent because so many people love to deer hunt and take the CRP for granted.

To see it go up in flames would make me sick as well.


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

g/o said:


> FBS,
> 
> If you want CRP then you will have to pay. Who is going to put land into CRP for $40 an acre (my area) when cash rent is now over $100 an acre?
> It's simple economics, supply and demand.


Agreed and I've got no problem with that. It's the only version of "pay to play" I'm willing to shell out for.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Lets not forget the real intent of CRP. The intent was to take highly erodable land out of production. The intent was to provide income to farmers on land that had little production of grain, and had less each year. Not only did CRP provide income, but the lowering of production increased the price of grain (less supply same demand). Cover on the land improved the land by adding to the topsoil through decaying vegetation and capture of wind and water born soil. 
The land that went into CRP could not sustain grain production sufficient to keep farming profitable. That is it couldn't without price support. The way to get CRP back is to not only increase price per acre, but to remove price supports. Price support is environmentally damaging because it allows farmers to break up land that should never go into crop production. Not all land is crop producing land and the proper use for much of it is pasture or hayland. Price support encourages the destruction of pasture and hayland because profits can be made on very poor land by farming the ag program not the land.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

g/o

No where else in the world can get any money for providing good wildlife habitat or money for land that should of never been touched anyway. And its not only about you. Its also about your family, friends, and neighbors. What about them. People who take out CRP on crap land are going to ruin air quality water quality and soil health like I already said. Its a no brainier to just leave CRP alone. This is the prairie leave it that way. By taking out CRP you are killing a whole eco system.

Not to mention ND economy will take a fall. Our only form of tourism is wildlife.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

FBS, Huh??????????????????? Go do a study on CRP and check up on CP23 and Check the soil quality maps on this so called crap land.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

G/O

I will be the first to say some of the land should come out. But there is way more land that should either be put in or not takin out. And yes I look at it everyday its my job. I have a degree in Agronomy and Natural Resource Management. So Huh????????????? I guess I have studied it extensively. And 70% of the CRP coming out is either HEL or CRAP soil that will not produce good yields. You just wait you think we have saline problems now you havent seen anything yet.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I am sorry I must of got caught up in the moment can you tell me about CP23 and CP23A. Do you know the purpose of those.

I will list just to inform everbody.

CP Practice
CP23 and CP23A - Wetland Restoration

Practice Codes
644 - Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management
645 - Upland Wildlife Habitat Management
657 - Wetland Restoration
390 - Riparian Herbaceous Cover

So tell me what that has to do with soil quality each case is a totally different animal there is no requirement for soil types.


----------



## james.hunter (Sep 5, 2007)

Well way to ruin the wild life farmers good job. Its great to see they have just there money in mind and not what really matters. Great job. :******:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

It's easy to ***** about it, but if the shoe was on the other foot, it would be interesting to see how far we would go to protect wildlife. I would like to think I would try and keep some CRP around if I was farming, but it would definately depend upon what the bottom line looked like. Really, the people we should be PO'd at are he ones that allowed this to happen. The politicians that are putting all our eggs in the ethanol basket. That basket will be upset real soon and some will lose their *** when it happens!! I hope wildlife can still recover after it does happen!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

FBS, I'm not going to get into a pissing match over CRP. Fact is the land coming out now is from the 15th sign up. This is the sign up where almost anything from ND that was applied for went in. The highly erodible land were the first years the program was in play. Now as far as soil qualifications go that is what our payment where based on. Example I have land that $45.00 was the max allowed. Because of the quality of soil on some quarters I receive the max on some others I receive only $40.00. The fact still remains like it or not CRP payment don't cut the expense of owning the land. Taxes have tripled since I put my land in, my maintenance costs have gone through the roof with the cost of fuel. Call us farmers greedy if you want its only economics.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> cash rent is now over $100 an acre?


 At least til the market bottoms out due to overproduction then the $40 will look good.


----------



## faithsdave (Jan 8, 2004)

G/O, would any of your crp be able to go into the PLOTS program? Would that then raise your income to a more competitive level on the crp instead of taking it out?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

faithsdave, Sure all my land would qualify for PLOTS but look at what they pay. $2.00 an acre is not going to cut it anywhere anymore for good hunting land. I talked with Terry last winter and he agreed the G&F needs to start paying way more for PLOTS if it's going to survive. PLOTS need to be in the $15.00 an acre range to keep and get more quality land. We are going to need a special PLOTS stamp or something to finance this. Problem is by the time this gets acted on it will be to late. I've been making noise about this for years and no one listens like always. Like djleye says the politicians have dug there heels deep into ethanol, and we will pay dearly.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So G/O with that high price for corn and low price for CRP.....are you taking all your land out and farming it?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ken, Unfortunately when I put mine in I opted for 15 year contracts for many parcels. So you guys will be stuck with me until 2014 when the last of it comes out. However I was offered extensions for some that come out in 2009 and I refused the offer. On the positive side talks are going on about giving us an early out.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

g/o said:


> faithsdave, Sure all my land would qualify for PLOTS but look at what they pay. $2.00 an acre is not going to cut it anywhere anymore for good hunting land. I talked with Terry last winter and he agreed the G&F needs to start paying way more for PLOTS if it's going to survive. PLOTS need to be in the $15.00 an acre range to keep and get more quality land. We are going to need a special PLOTS stamp or something to finance this. Problem is by the time this gets acted on it will be to late. I've been making noise about this for years and no one listens like always. Like djleye says the politicians have dug there heels deep into ethanol, and we will pay dearly.


This is spot on G/O. Thanks for doing as much as you can.

I'm in agreement with djleye and G/O... I really wonder if those who are complaining would be looking at the whole situation differently if they realized how the costs and taxes have skyrocketed since the first signup.

If you were losing $10 an acre and had 10,000 acres enrolled.. would you be willing to lose *$100,000*?

I've advocated for a ND sportsmen's stamp idea for years. I suggested it when I spoke in front of the ND G&F advisory board meeting before I came out west. I'd like to see specific enrolled acres available to only those who purchase the stamp. Voluntarily this would go over like gangbusters... provided that there was a no burning/cutting/haying clause on those acres, except as specifically required for grassland maintenance on an infrequent basis.

Couldn't some guys start up an immediate initiative effort to get a sportsmen's stamp onto the next ballot?

Ryan


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

you know, it is surprising a big hunting state like ND and/or SD did not enact a PLOTS stamp already, with all that is at stake here and the devestation that wildlife will suffer due to huge amounts of gound coming out of the program.

you guys need to get the ball rolling with the appropriate agency to make a difference. driving around and watching it burn won't change anything.
you have to get organized and be activists. DU, Delta and PF (i would think) would be a good source or voice of concern for this issue, at least as a place to get started and organized.

good luck!


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

> If you want CRP then you will have to pay. Who is going to put land into CRP for $40 an acre (my area) when cash rent is now over $100 an acre?
> It's simple economics, supply and demand.


That's actually the concept of _opportunity cost_, not supply and demand. The opportunity cost in this example is of the next best alternative - here CRP @ $40/acre - is $60/acre, as opposed to cash renting pasture for $100/acre.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> Like djleye says the politicians have dug there heels deep into ethanol, and we will pay dearly.


Dammit....I hate when we agree!!!!!   :lol: :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well like I said I am willing to pay for conservation practices. Young people will need land to farm 50 years from now too. 
g/o what would it take for you to keep your land in CRP, $60, $70 $80? I know the $100 your talking about is good farm land. What would it cost to get people to put their marginal land into CRP? 
I would be alright with $80 and acre. CRP improves poor land, takes land out of production which brings up market prices, provides habitat, and the list goes on. Lets all think about pushing for higher CRP payments.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

There are alot of ways to look at this, but this is how I see it. CRP put an end to rural ND, fewer acres to farm, fewer farms, kids leave blah blah blah. Benefits, better water, less erosion, more wildlife ,blah blah blah. Where is it headed now? Land comes out, fewer farmers, farming the same land = no benefit to small towns as everything is already gone. No wildlife = no tourism for the state (or small Town). The ethanol bubble bursts and now everything is gone. Im not against anyone making money off there land but be careful what you wish for!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Plainsman, Most of us would like to keep some in CRP and would be willing to take less than rent in the area. I do not need to have full sections of land in CRP some could be farmed some could be left alone. Unfortunately that's not how the program works. Just to enlighten you the highest cash rent being paid now is for land coming out of CRP not land currently being farmed. Reason is these guys want more land to farm and the only land available is what is coming out of CRP.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*USDA Won't Disallow Penalty-Free CRP REleases*

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership and members of its Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group (AWWG) have praised Acting Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner for his recent decision to disallow penalty-free early releases from Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) contracts.

As policymakers search for ways to boost biofuels production, some have suggested that by terminating CRP contracts, more land could be freed up quickly for production. By protecting the intended integrity of the largest of all the Farm Bill conservation programs, Acting Secretary Conner's decision to disallow penalty-free early releases will serve to continue the vital progress made in conserving fish and wildlife habitat throughout the country.

"We are thrilled to get this news," said Dave Nomsen of Pheasants Forever and a co-chair of the AWWG. "Our community has followed this issue closely for many months. CRP is the largest of our nation's conservation programs and provides so much good for soil and water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and rural economies. This decision keeps that progress growing."

TRCP and members of the AWWG sent a letter earlier this month to the Secretary warning of the pitfalls surrounding early release from CRP contracts and highlighting the many environmental and economic benefits derived from the program. "Through CRP, farmers and ranchers are making a real difference in the protection and enhancement of the environment," said Bart James of Ducks Unlimited and another of AWWG's co-chairs. "CRP in the Prairie Pothole region alone helps produce over 2 million ducks per year."

CRP also improves fish and wildlife habitat by:

-Restoring 2 million acres of wetlands and adjacent buffers;

-Restoring over 8 million acres of valuable grassland and forest habitats;

-Reducing soil erosion by more than 40 percent;

-Protecting 170,000 miles of streams;

-Sequestering 48 million tons of carbon dioxide;

-Producing 13.5 million pheasants each year; and

-Increasing waterfowl nesting in the Prairie Pothole region by 46 percent.

CRP also promotes underlying economic benefits as well. In 2006 alone, over 87 million Americans enjoyed recreational activities related to fish and wildlife. As a result, sportsmen/-women and others injected $120.1 billion into rural economies throughout the country.

"Keeping millions of acres in CRP that might otherwise have opted-out will increase the amount of fish and wildlife habitat and thereby the economic stimulation it provides," said remaining AWWG co-chair Jen Mock Schaeffer of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. "This has a profound impact on revenues and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that follow - particularly in rural communities."

Inspired by the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, the TRCP is a coalition of organizations and grassroots partners working together to preserve the traditions of hunting and fishing.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

If the people in washington had anysense, they would consider the prarie pothole region of the country a national treasure. And would be working on protecting and preserving it rather then trying to exploit it for more biofuel production.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o, I'm impressed with your conservation attitude. I for one would sure be willing to put more tax money into CRP. 
I would prefer to keep grain prices up through the market. The only drawback I see is that the middle man may get more of that profit than the farmer whereas support prices get directly to the farmer. However, there is no way the middle man can get to CRP payments so I really do like the program. While I was growing up we had our farm in the old Soil Bank program for seven years. It was at that point in my early life that I decided when I grew up I would rather support conservation payments than support prices.

When the Soil Bank program ended and we farmed those fields again there was no gravel on the hilltops from excess erosion. The grass had caught enough wind born topsoil to cover those hilltops with a few inches of good soil. We lived in the Sheyenne River valley and our neighbor up slope had terrible water erosion on his fields. Dirty water flowed into our 80 acres along that slope, and flowed out clean. Soil built up nearly three feet deep in one of the valleys coming off the neighbors field. CRP fields are much better land now than when they went into CRP. We need to keep this program going not only for improved market prices, and wildlife habitat, but it will be good land for future farmers. Hopefully they will rotate and put some of their land into CRP 100 years from now.


----------



## fishhook (Aug 29, 2002)

A) Very few acres in north dakota cash rent for $100/acre. Once we have a correction in the commodities markets or a bad weather year those that are paying this will feel the sting. Are those of you talking this price talking the red river valley? Because obviously, that's a little different ball game.

B) it never ceases to amaze me. stock market, commodities, sports etc. Everyone follows what the winners were last year instead of looking towards the future. I actually predicted we would have higher small grain prices this year. With everyone and their dog planting corn the supply of small grains was lower , therefore it trades at a premium. kind of like when certain areas in florida freeze hard, you see the price of oranges go up. This isn't a hard concept to understand. Just like beef. When we quite importing beef from canada our prices for beef went up. You can go to a baseball game for $10, not because they are being nice, but because they rarely have full houses...try to find a nfl ticket for $10. Now depending on whether or not everyone breaking CRP land will turn it into tillable acres we could have more small grains acres, corn acres, etc. forcing the prices on these commodities down.

Now i'm not against anyone making a living, and everyone needs to decide what is best for them (it's not my call or anyone elses), but in my humble opinion this is a real critical time for north dakota farmers. Does anyone remember the early to mid 80's when prices were good and our farmers where making really good profits? Look at the number of new homes that went up at that time and then look a few years later when so many went bankrupt. Please save some for the down years. I've been seeing a lot of brand spanking new vehicles around.......and i don't just think it is a coincidence.

CRP is a good thing...a great thing. you get paid to take your land out of production lowering the supply and in theory making your other acres more valuable. Seeing these acres getting burned and broken is a sad day. I think people are just to short-sighted when it comes to being able to make a buck.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN WHAT YOU THINK YOU ALREADY KNOW... this thread is only going to draw a line wider between farmers and Non-farmers.

The simple truth to it is again SUPPLY and DEMAND... Commodities are peaking (hopefully, for farmer and non-farmers sake) and the amount of disposible income for farmers this year will be higher than the AVERAGE... with these commodity prices so high (output) there is a scarcity in land (creating demand) available for sale or rent. This scarcity will ths increase the average cash rents or price per acre in a sale (Input).

So looking at in a simple economical way... as commodity prices have increased substantially which in turn increased MANY farmers disposible income and will increase the competition in bidding on the sale of or rent of farm land.

CRP has to stay price competitive to get the acres... it is that simple. In my opinion, renewing a CRP contract in today's market would be similar to someone in my profession chosing to take a pay cut to work for a Non-Profit company. They believe in what they are doing and what it does for society and it is a concious decision to take a pay cut. I also understand that there are some LANDOWNERS that choose CRP because of a consistent payment..fine... that is a smaller group every year as many of these LANDOWNERS are retiring fully now and cashing out their land at the appreciated values. AND WHY SHOULDN"T THEY... THEY WORKED ALL THEIR LIFE FOR A MOMENT LIKE THIS...

Be careful to observe and not judge...


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Mine was disced down the day after it came out, Oct 2. Way more wildlife can live on a quarter of alfalfa than a quarter of natural dry stem grass. Upland birds prefer legumes because they eat all the hoppers and other pests that eat green foliage. Deer we know prefer domestic crops.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

northdakotakid said:


> IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN WHAT YOU THINK YOU ALREADY KNOW... this thread is only going to draw a line wider between farmers and Non-farmers.
> 
> The simple truth to it is again SUPPLY and DEMAND... Commodities are peaking (hopefully, for farmer and non-farmers sake) and the amount of disposible income for farmers this year will be higher than the AVERAGE... with these commodity prices so high (output) there is a scarcity in land (creating demand) available for sale or rent. This scarcity will ths increase the average cash rents or price per acre in a sale (Input).
> 
> ...


Great post Bill. Your thoughts are always well written and thought provoking...

Ryan


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

heres the dumb question for the day :lol:

Why do they have to burn it especially prior to winter, is it just something that has to be done before you change the use from CRP to growng crops?

A farmer I'm not 

Lots of good informative posts by the way :beer:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Bobm, I haven't witnessed any burning except where it is done as part of the maintenance contract with CRP. The majority is being baled right now, then sprayed with round-up. Some will be plowed,disced,and some will be no-tilled to beans or corn next year. Burning is the last resort, the humus from 10-20- years of vegetation is very valuable.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

That reconstituted soil is beautiful my friends.


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

Buckseye are you serious. I'd like to see the cover that disced corn and cut alfalfa provide for deer and the like during the fall and winter. Before the major CRP contracts the deer hunting was crap and so was the upland hunting.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Is CRP a crop?

I understand it is a prgram, but I think that people fail to see that it is a crop also because it takes inputs(weed control, planting) and it has outputs(wildlife habitat, hay).

Now when you think about it from a financial point of view... which is what a farmer does when he decides how to plant the individual acres of his/her land (right?)... it is not a matter of how many deer it will hold or pheasants it will winter. This is a profession and a way of life.

The benefits that each crop offers wildlife is secondary to the AVERAGE farmer... but not unidentified. These men and women do more for wildlife than any other single participant in conservation.

Another fact is that CRP contracts are expiring at the height of commodity prices (per earlier post) and will most likely be put back into production. Now if their is a party that you should be mad at... TALK TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN!!! If our country had a better financial position the Farm Bill would have more meat on it's bones which would include funding for conservation practices such as CRP !!!!

AGAIN... PRICE WINS EVERY TIME ... if we had a strong enough farm bill to support the increases needed to attract LANDOWNERS to sign their land in then we would not be having this conversation...


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

What would it take to try and get a measure to get a crp stamp attatched to every hunters license!! I cannot imagine anyone that would ***** about something that would directly benefit the critters!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Some regions are going to see a fair amount lost. Others are going to get by pretty fair. The driving factor from those I talked with is maintenance. Many older people who have land in CRP can no longer do the clipping and spraying needed. For them the end of the CRP contract would have been the end anyway regardless of the commodity prices. Others have taken a liking to the increase in wildlife and are not in need of more money and are looking to keep it in.

G/O is right as are others, we cannot blame the landowner for taking more money in cash rent. Most everyone of us have left a job for a better paying job. Our leaving left a hole in our former employers business. Yet we are not chastised for doing this.

We are to blame for this as much as anyone. We have sent the Three Stooges back to Washington knowing full well they where hot on corn ethanol and cold on CRP. Conrad tried to schmooze many with his open lands imitative and many bit hook line and sinker! Now four years later it is no closer to being a reality than Bismarck is to the Equator!

So do a bit of inward looking and think about things beyond the moment. You want ethanol to be defended, then we need someone besides the Stooges going to Washington from this state. The people in MN are stuck because even those running against the incumbents want more of it.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Did anyone else hear about the GRASS fire? I heard it on the radio, and coulden't catch the whole story. They said it wasn't a controlled burn, and some machinery burnt up, and almost took over a farm.

CPR???

It will be interesting to hear the whole story..


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

North Dakota already has a "habitat stamp" required for purchase of any hunting/fishing license. It is a matter of getting legislation to dedicate the funding and to increase the price to a level needed to actually conserve/restore habitat as required.

The NDGF would have to be on-board with any change and agree to dedicate the funding accordingly. I am not real sure if the funding goes into a fund now or if it goes to the general budget to use as needed. I will have to do some research on that. Even with the blessing of NDGF the ND legislature will have to embrace the issue and that will be a very tough sell IMO.

The only way it would be able to work in ND is for PLOTS land, there is not a program in place that know of that allows for a state to directly supplement a federal conservation/wildlife program in this manner, other than PLOTS.

The strangest part of it is that a program existed in ND and was not really allowed to succeed. g/o and some others in his area developed a decent sized parcel via the Community PLOTS Program. To my knowledge it is the only one in the state. I have seen the land it was a very nice piece of ground and I hope it still is. The program was a good one but IMHO some of the restrictions placed on it were not conducive to allow it to achieve its full benefit.

There are always hurdles to jump and obstacles to negotiate but if enough people want the benefit and are committed to making it happen, it will happen.

Bob


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Good posts all. On the PLOTS stamp if we could get the legislature to quit raiding the NDGF budget there would be enough $$$$ for a couple hundred thousand acres more PLOTS. Of course that would require actually talking to your legislator abnd following up.  It not a lack of money for PLOTS, it's lack of will from sportmen.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

How much money does the tourism department donate to the PLOTS program?

They sure like to sell hunting as a tourist attraction but don't seem willing to help with access.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Just a thought here, but how about a "PLOTS" wildlife license plate. Say an extra $25 for the plates? Would that generate enough monies to increase the rate or the amount of land in PLOTS?

623,000 people in this state. Even if 30,000 sportsmen/women opted for the plate it would generate $750,000 for PLOTS.

Just a thought I had. :huh:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

All of these ideas for saving PLOTS are wonderful. The main problem is still CRP contracts. On some of my contracts a 5 year max was all I was offered, and same goes for many more. Only 20% of the county were offered 10-15 year contracts and these did include higher rates. I'm not trying to start anything but just being factual. If 60% of these 20% contracts are offered to people such as myself who are not enrolled in PLOTS you ideas are fruitless. One really needs to make some changes here but Washington is not in the save CRP mode.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

G/O can you explain that a little better, if you aren't enrolled in plots but but you do enroll in CRP wont that make more good habitat if the number of acres of plots still rises from other people that would enroll?? What am I missing??

thanks I am not being argumentative just trying to follow this discussion, I really dont understand


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

wingmaster wrote



> Buckseye are you serious. I'd like to see the cover that disced corn and cut alfalfa provide for deer and the like during the fall and winter. Before the major CRP contracts the deer hunting was crap and so was the upland hunting.


yeah totaly serious. it takes fairly good soil before you can turn dirt into food for people to eat.... its like magic... :lol:

This particular land held no deer or birds as it was... it will be full of them in a year ot two. You must think we need CRP for bedding areas the way it sounds. We don't out here.


----------



## woodpecker (Mar 2, 2005)

xxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Anyone who says that alfalfa hayland is superior wildlife habitat to even marginal grassland and is serious has serious peyote issues. No one, and I repeat no one who has ever run a mower in June can defend the wildlife value of alfalfa. Sorry, but that has to be said.

A pile of that CRP out there has severely degraded in value to wildlife. Fact.

Conversion of that poor quality grassland to cropland is still a loss for wildlife.
Fact.

Conversion of that acre of CRp to cropland with another going into CRP is actually a plus. There are a ton of benefits in your early succession grasslands that are gone in the weed free rank stands of brome many of our Dakota CRP stands are now.

From a pheasant standpoint in G/O's area, as long as we stay wet, a lot of the CRP can come out. The sloughs overwinter the birds, and the fact is thatt as long as we stay wet no one can dick with them. As soon as we get dry though, we would have no CRP safety net as in the past. In realtiy the continuous CRP practices we have can make wonderful pheasant habitat on a quarter and still allow a majority of it, including the best land, to be farmed.

None of that is true of ducks.

Ducks are the driving force behind large block CRP, and they will pay the price for these changes.

A pile of CRP in NESD was broken up in August per CRP rules and is already seeded to winter wheat. Saddest thing you have ever seen.

Many many more acres are going under the disk now. Whats intersting is that the soils guys say about 80% of the carbon that was sequestered in the past 10 years of CRp will be relaesed back into the atmosphere in the first two tillage passes to bring it back into production. With no till at least that benefit is preserved. Other acres are going in. We are busy in my office buffering streams and doing continous CRP right now. Rates in SD against the border for some of these practices are busting 110 bucks an acre. I think we have 40 active applications right now. Trick is they are mostly for small acreages, although CP37 has some good sized acres.

Oh well, not much to gain in the argument.

Tom


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Jeeze Tom they need food too... have you ever hunted sharptail grouse? Here they are found in alfalfa almost exclusivly. They nest in the pastures and slews that are not touched by any farm equipment.

No peyote either.. heard it makes you sick. :lol:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Are you in the business of shooting sharptails or raising them???

If you raise them I guarantee there will be somewhere to shoot them, but if there nests are destroyed after you bait them into building there nests in a beautifult green carpet of there favorite food, how are they better off? And they wont be there to shoot.

Alfalfa is one of the deadliest traps we can lay for grassland nesting birds.

Period.

They get along just fine praire vetch, red clover, or any one of the dozen native forbs we can put into a good CRP mix.

Agreed, after we spray it for a five years to get the thistles under control there aint much left, but in fresh CRP there is a great plenty there.


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

I have hayed alfalfa many times and I know its good for nesting waterfowl and upland birds. I'm talking about late season hiding places. I hunt in 2H and 2G2. Before CRP the deer pop was low and the buck quality was not good. When all the CRP contracts came in everything flourished pheasants, grouse, partridge, ducks, and deer. And when most of the CRP comes out the hunting of these species will decline big time. That's all I am saying.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Tom you should see where I am before you make decisions like that. There are no single blanket practices that are the same everywhere. So you don't think a quarter or two of alfalfa beside 70,000 acres of NWR and pasture is good...  ..... to funny man.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

buckseye said:


> Tom you should see where I am before you make decisions like that. There are no single blanket practices that are the same everywhere. So you don't think a quarter or two of alfalfa beside 70,000 acres of NWR and pasture is good...  ..... to funny man.


Tom,

Buckseye is right in this situation. I hunt sharps in his area and they do great without CRP. Now that's not to diminish CRPs SIGNIFICANT impact on wildlife. Where he's at the pastures provide adequate cover and they love to feed in the alfalfa.

The loss of CRP is not good for ND. Many species have thrived because of it! The gov't needs to step up and offer better incentives...


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I am afraid that I feel I can make an absolute blanket statement on this one. I have never, and I repeat never, seen a field of alfalfa that was a net positive for wildlife, in particular upland nesting birds. I am a campaigner for alfalfa from agronomic, soil quality, and crop rotation point of view, but from a wildlife?????

You may shoot birds out of it, deer might love to graze in it, and it may provide diversity of forage. But in the end it provides nothing that a properly managed prairie does not, and the harvest has significant detriments.

So no, I will unequivicolly, without a third thought, say beyond any doubt that there is no way that movement from CRP to alfalfa hayland is anything but a significant negative change. And if you believe that by breaking prairie and placing it into production you are making some twisted sort of habitat improvement then I will say that you are rationalizing the decision.

Period.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Yeah Tom we done twisted this into human habitat. And as humans we need to eat also, how do you suggest making a living off 2 quarters of pasture these days. You are forgetting the human element Tom.

As a side note I've hayed 10's of thousands of acres and haven't killed near as many young grouse as a hail storm does. Are you having a beer or two? :lol:


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

Tom,

I wasn't saying they nested in the alfalfa. All I was saying that the sharps are plentiful in the area...they must nest in the pastures...because there isn't any CRP found and you find them feeding in the alfalfa.

I wasn't trying to get in the middle of the alfalfa vs. CRP argument. I'm too think CRP is the best and will take it over any crop. I'm just validating I've killed plenty of sharpies without CRP...again in that area.

Geez...some tense folks around here...


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

The license plate idea is a nice thought but if you net it out wouldn't we get more financial impact out having a PLOTS stamp? State supported stamp that put money directly into state budgets for PLOTS access and other simialr programs cventered around access...

$5 * 30,000 = $150,000 a year...
$150,000 * 4 = $600,000


----------



## Nick Roehl (Mar 7, 2002)

Many young pheasant are shredded while cutting alfalfa. Anyone who has cut it in pheasant country knows exactly what I'm talking about.

buckseye
Rent it out, or maybe get some cattle. If your trying to live off 2 quarters of pasture good luck. :roll:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Bad advice wingmaster... Sorry... 

Not pheasant country here so take that out of your formula for decision making... have you heard of capitalism it's pretty cool and legal.

It is rented and 2 quarters was only an example... :lol:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

When the CRP is gone it will be nice to see some alfalfa fields


----------



## dosch (May 20, 2003)

And when Ethanol industry tanks and which it will. It'll be even nicer to see some Barley fields again. 

http://www.grandforksherald.com/ap/inde ... =D8S4MJTO2


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

ND does indeed have a habitat stamp labeled as "small game and habitat" however at one time those stamps were separate. I recal having to buy both a "small game" and a "habitat" stamp. I don't recall how those funds were distributed or how it is now distributed but I would not object to a dedicated stamp for habitat retention.



> Way more wildlife can live on a quarter of alfalfa than a quarter of natural dry stem grass. Upland birds prefer legumes because they eat all the hoppers and other pests that eat green foliage


. Are you 100% sure? Living on and feeding on are two separate things. Does that alfalfa provide winter and nesting cover for game? Probably not. Game needs a place for security and protection from the elements in addition to food.

It is my understanding that the land enrolled in the last couple of rounds of CRP is better land than the program was originally intended to cover. Sounds like another case of spend it or lose it by our government agencies. I would have prefered that money be used to increase payments on the land that "truely" qualified for the program thus providing more incentive to keep the truely marginal land in the program even if it ultimately is less acreage better to have a little less acreage long term than a lot of acreage short term.

I think both the farmers/landowners and game are going to get burned as the first round of CRP comes out. A lot of guys are talking corn and ethanol but I really think that the demand (corn) for ethanol production is still at least 5 years out. So we will either end up with a surplus of corn or a surplus of wheat when corn prices drop and everyone jumps on wheat again. Time will tell but the good times are now so enjoy them.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

How far out is the biofuel from switchgrass. It seems that would be a better way to go anyway. A crop that could be cut more than once, less spraying, etc.
Of course with how deep everyone is into corn, there is probably already a lobby started to continue using corn for biofuel and stay away from switchgrass!! :eyeroll:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

A ways yet eye...

There are pilot plants being built in several places for the scale up to commercial, but it is all being done with stalks for the most part.

Still a big discussion about the pathway, I think there may be may be a gradual movement to pyrolysis, but it is gradual.

Cellulose is coming, but a ways off.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Switch grass

From what I have seen and heard will never work. On the other hand neither will corn. The worst thing about Ethanol is the amount of water it uses. Our water supply is lower than our oil supply. But I am just stating the obvious everyone already knows that ethanol will never work.

What we need to do is get rid of government subsidies and raise CRP rentals. They did raise it about a month ago $7 across the board for all soil types. They should also make it illegal to break any native prairie.

And somebody was talking about cattails. They are great for wildlife but most of those get burned off before the winter starts anyway.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

DS2 wrote



> Are you 100% sure? Living on and feeding on are two separate things. Does that alfalfa provide winter and nesting cover for game? Probably not. Game needs a place for security and protection from the elements in addition to food.


Of course it does it wouldn't be in alfalfa if it wasn't a marginal land with slews and trees. You think people are putting good smooth cleared fields into hay land... whoa come on out into the great wild blue yonder and check it out.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Oddly enough, if you look around in areas with a market, quite often the alfalfa is planted on the very best ground. High producing dairy quality alfalfa witha close at hand market is a hard product to beat for return per acre, even with 8$ wheat and 3$ corn. PLus it puts nitrogen back in the soil and helps build soiuld structure. One of the best recipes for 200 bushel corn you can find in my country is spraying out corn and no tilling into the stubble.

Man does that corn do great.

So yes, in many areas people are putting good smooth cleared fields not into hayland (like that is some sentence or slur on a good piece of land), but into a five year rotation of alfalfa. Just a crop like any other.

Tom


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

You're right on the alfalfa rotation, but no one is doing it here yet as a regular plan. The alfalfa ground around here usually has a sizable amount of non tillable land with it on each piece regardless of size. I don't know what happens in other places and don't claim to.

I'll always love the smell of fresh turned soil and the feel of a dollar bill in my hand.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If the money went in the PLOTS SYSTEM I would like to see them raise the NR upland liscense to $200.00 good for the whole season. I doubt the pressure would go up but the revenue would be useful.

And I doubt very many NRs hunt 4 weeks which is what 200.00 would buy now.

Doubling the price of the R liscense for adults would be reasonable also if the money was earmarked for Plots


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> If the money went in the PLOTS SYSTEM I would like to see them raise the NR upland liscense to $200.00 good for the whole season. I doubt the pressure would go up but the revenue would be useful.
> 
> And I doubt very many NRs hunt 4 weeks which is what 200.00 would buy now.
> 
> Doubling the price of the R liscense for adults would be reasonable also if the money was earmarked for Plots


I'd like to see something similar to this Bob. But I'd like to see it go towards an additional new program that is seperate from PLOTS. That program has its own rules and "place" in the hierarchy of options available to both landowners and sportsmen.

In the program I envision, there would be a new set of signs that would go up for land enrolled in it. Only those who possess the additional stamp could access the additional program land. In that way it gives people an additional access option, makes it a tiny bit more restrictive to those who pay to have more play, and the resulting effect is even more land put in reserve which would have an overall effect of protecting/enhancing wildlife in a given area. That program would have no haying/grazing unless absolutely necessary. All $$$ from that stamp must go directly to land acquisition compensation. Everyone accessing the land must possess that stamp unless it is a minor child under the age of 16.

Sounds like the start of a framework for a great idea.

Ryan


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Ryan, I don't entirely disagree with your idea, but it really sounds like an enforcement nightmare!! It would be way too tough to have different levels of hunter that can or cannot use some ground depending upon how much they paid. I would rather see a more moderate increase for all res and NR and then all can use the land acquired.
Kids stay the same, say under 18 years of age. 18 and over pay the increase!!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I dont think I would want to make kids under 21 have to pay it would be two burdensome for anyone trying to come with their kids.

If their dad buys the tag that would be good enough.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

djleye said:


> Ryan, I don't entirely disagree with your idea, but it really sounds like an enforcement nightmare!! It would be way too tough to have different levels of hunter that can or cannot use some ground depending upon how much they paid. I would rather see a more moderate increase for all res and NR and then all can use the land acquired.
> Kids stay the same, say under 18 years of age. 18 and over pay the increase!!


That has been a similar comment I've heard when suggesting it before. I really don't think it is any additional enforcement nightmare. Think of it like deer hunters having to hunt in specific units with boundaries. G&F currently has to deal with those parameters when checking deer hunters. It is not really an enforcement nightmare to do that, so I don't see much difference in my idea.

For example, the only type of enforcement action would be to check hunters if they possess the stamp, if they are checked while hunting a plot of land enrolled in the program. Simple really. What's the difficulty in that? If caught they would pay a fine equivalent to twice the cost of the stamp, so they should have just bought one to be safe.

Simply put, the new program would give hunters an additional access alternative if they chose to utilize it. By having the extra program/stamp it is voluntary. That way someone can choose the level of available land they potentially might be able to access. It's just another option in their toolbox.

This needs to be strongly considered. The writing is on the wall. Just look at the recently posted articles about all the cutting/plowing of CRP. With less land enrolled, the PLOTS are going to be REALLLLLYYYY pounded in coming years. I don't think people are considering the downstream effects this is going to have.

Having a tiered program with another layer of access will be the answer. I realize it just seems "easy" to simply dump the additional $$$ into PLOTS, however this extra option gives more program control options with different rules.

Thanks for considering my thoughts....

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> I dont think I would want to make kids under 21 have to pay it would be two burdensome for anyone trying to come with their kids.
> 
> If their dad buys the tag that would be good enough.


This is one area where I disagree with making it so completely easy on kids having unpaid access.

They already have many choices, and get "comped" on many things. The idea of a program like this is pay to play. Any serious 16-21 year old is going to be able to hunt just as hard as an adult. The program needs to be funded by everyone who participates unless they are learning(e.g. under 16).

With my suggestion(s) posted prior to this, if we had an additional access program, they youth would still be able to hunt the PLOTS land, just not the land enrolled in the new program.

Making them purchase the stamp is the same thing as making a teen purchase a federal duck stamp when hunting waterfowl. If they want to play they need to pay for the additional better access.

Ryan


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

If your talking about a 5-10 dollar stamp thats one thing if your talking about a 200.00 NR liscense and a guy with 3-4 kids thats quite another.

But I'm out of this conversation its up to Northdakotans, one thing we definitely agree about with CRP going away Plots will be pounded if its not expanded a lot.

You guys work it out :beer: I'll be willing to pay more if it will help


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Heres my opinion.

There are very few CRP tracts in the state that provide good big game cover. Most of the decent cover in these tracts is around sloughs and wetlands. I personaly see VERY FEW deer in crp after the snow flies and the ones in CRP before this are often in wetland areas and very close to food sources, they are almost exclusively found in crop areas. Where the food is. Most CRP ive seen in winter is socked in completely with snow offering protection to only mice and pheasants. The wetlands will still be there even if CRP is not, and now it will be surrounded by crop, which equals food. And I believe a good winter food source will save more deer than marginal cover. I believe riparian areas with a good food source to be much more beneficial to big game (deer) than CRP.

Remember now, this is purely from a BIG GAME standpoint ( I dont think anyone can argue how important CRP has been towards bird populations).

If CRP is so important to big game, how do you explain the blossoming deer populations (along with lots of big mature bucks) in states such as Illinois and Iowa, states in which every parcel of ground is tilled and put into crops such as corn and soybeans (which we are seeing huge increases in acreage of here)? They have no wetlands for cover as they have tiled them all, and Iowa has slightly more trees, but cover wise, id say were pretty equal.

I think everyone in rural america realizes that this ethanol BS is gonna bust at some point, but you have to remember that the gov't is catering to the masses, which unfortunatly are yuppy city slickers who think ethanol and biofuels are going to save the world. Rural americas voice cant be heard among the yuppy masses.

Before everyone gets ticked at me, I just want to say that I dont want CRP to go like it may, but I have to argue its importance when it boils down to big game.

The opinions reflected in this post do not necesarily reflect the opinions of NodakOutdoors or its affiliates.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> I think everyone in rural america realizes that this ethanol BS is gonna bust at some point, but you have to remember that the gov't is catering to the masses, which unfortunatly are yuppy city slickers who think ethanol and biofuels are going to save the world. Rural americas voice cant be heard among the yuppy masses.


?? isnt the farm lobby and the farm state Senators and congress people behind the ethanol boondoggle. You can blame a lot of things in this country on city slicker yuppies but the ethanol issue isn't on of them.

Whats strange to me is it seems everyone knows the ethanol thing is BS except our government. Actauly they know full well also, but like the lobbiest money so much they wont do the right thing.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Bobm said:


> ?? isnt the farm lobby and the farm state Senators and congress people behind the ethanol boondoggle. You can blame a lot of things in this country on city slicker yuppies but the ethanol issue isn't on of them.
> 
> Whats strange to me is it seems everyone knows the ethanol thing is BS except our government. Actauly they know full well also, but like the lobbiest money so much they wont do the right thing.


Granted. Yes the senators and such from farm states want to get re-elected, and politicians are sick with greed, but can you imagine what urban america would say if the gov't cut funding for "save the world" fuel alternatives, and hence, said politician shoots self in foot for re-election, which is the ultimate goal of most.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> The wetlands will still be there even if CRP is not, and now it will be surrounded by crop, which equals food. And I believe a good winter food source will save more deer than marginal cover. I believe riparian areas with a good food source to be much more beneficial to big game (deer) than CRP.


I also think cattails in the middle of a crop field are a great thing but unfortunately they to get burned. I dont want to offend any of the farmers around the state, but I travel the state a lot and I meet lots of farmers some of them come up with some bad ideas.
The reason farmers burn cattails is to control black birds. :eyeroll: (This is what I was told) First they burn them after the crop is off, by the next year the cattails are just as high sooo.....Whats the point of burning them. Then this guy proceeded to tell a story about the time they didnt burn one of the sloughs and they shot the biggest buck of there lives out of there. And the same breath he said we dont get bucks like this one around here there just isnt any cover. 

Maybe we need a save the cattail fund. Cattails also provide winter habitat for upland game birds along with deer. Not to mention they soak up access water reducing salinity. But we still need CRP for nesting grounds and cover for fawns.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Cattails are burned for snow control. Farmers dont want lots of snow collecting in those low spots, takes them longer to dry out in the spring when their chomping at the bit to get in the field.

Who told you blackbird control?


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I know why most farmers burn them like you said snow collection. The other thing there missing is the areas that cattails are in are low areas or wetlands to be exact, so when the snow melts the water will collect there any way. Maybe a little less than if cattails were there but cattails use a lot of water so its basically is a wash. The worst thing you could do is burn them and then run a disc through them. This creates a hard pack witch will not let water infiltrate into the ground. If you leave the cattails there roots will also provide a channel for the water to penetrate deeper into the ground. Same thing as no till but it takes time. If you burn and disc every year dont expect to leave them one year and get good water infiltration it takes 3 - 5 years of leaving them alone. Another thing that will happen when removing vegetation from wet areas is you will cause a saline seep. If the water evaporates before it infiltrates it will bring salts to the surface making it virtually impossible for anything to grow in that area.


----------



## Old Hunter (Mar 8, 2002)

In the last week I have seen thousands of acres mostly baled some burned. Last night I saw a 1/4 of crp burned that I had hunted for almost 20 years. As the contracts are expiring its seems ownership of the land is changing also. A lot of the older farmers are done with crp and land prices are good. They are more inclined to sell.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Was in that area this weekend as well OH. Lots of bailed and burned stuff. Kinda sad. I am not saying I blame the farmers, but the lawmakers, I do!! Something needs to be done soon. The wildlife surplus we have now will take a long time to build up if we loose too much ground!!


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Just had a quarter of crp land in my area sell for $780 / acre to an out of state hunter. The crp is in the program untill 2013 but no more haying of that and its already posted up tight!!


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

The image is the estimated CRP losses. Data from USDA for acres not re-enrolled or extended that expire during 2007-2010. If you think it is bad now, just wait a few years.


----------

