# What happens when CRP goes away



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*IF (WHEN) WE LOSE THE CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO WILDLIFE?*

North Americas' portion of the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) habitat that is currently in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has an uncertain future at best.

First hand knowledge of this is evident by the denial of re-enrollment of some very marginal crop land that happens to be excellent wildlife habitat now planted into tall grass CRP. How many others are facing the same dilemma? 2008 may be a huge impact year on wildlife as an estimated 100,000 acres in one North Dakota County alone are up for renewal in 2007.

CRP has been paraphrased in a positive and negative context in many conversations. It has been blamed for the death or decline of "small town" North Dakota and in the same conversation praised for its original intent, to curb soil erosion. The original intent of CRP had nothing to do with wildlife habitat; it was a by-product of the systems requirements.

Hunting, Fishing and Eco-tourism in North Dakota has a documented one plus billion-dollar impact on the state. Other than the Game and Fish department what other state agencies, local governments or businesses that benefit from the resident and nonresident sportsman's dollars actually put monies directly into the kitty for preservation, maintenance and procurement of wildlife habitat? Some of the stewards of the land that work so hard to maintain the profitability of their land feel they deserve compensation for expenses incurred for taking care of the states wildlife. Many are 180 degrees from this stance as they see the benefits nature provides us. There is another growing category, absentee landowners, some with CRP contracts. CRP and other federal farm programs like swampbuster are currently compensating landowners, and in some cases making the payments on land purchases, what will happen to the wildlife when CRP is no longer a source of income. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it out; wildlife populations will decline or other ways of profiting from wildlife will increase. For those of us without excess disposable income, opportunities will quite possibly diminish. Do you want to just watch it happen?

You may be reading this and are wondering what does this have to do with me, I live in the city/country, I do not hunt or fish much why should I care. The above mentioned billion dollar impact is dispersed to a wide variety of businesses and services some of which you may frequent. If they lose money, they have choices to make raise prices, cut back services or personnel to make up for the lost profit, eat the losses or go out of business. As taxes are collected by the state from sales, services and personnel from these businesses, decreases in these collections will eventually mean increased taxes or rollback of services by the state. The federal "sugar-daddy" in today's climate will say it is up to the state to fix their own problems, and rightfully so.

Choices, very difficult choices are on the horizon. Currently there are issues before the North Dakota Legislative Council to study increases in the number of participants in North Dakotas' hunting and fishing activities with less revenue derived in the long term, and many other outdoor issues as well, to date I have no knowledge of any issues on the table pertaining to CRP or habitat, with the possible exception of PLOTS land. The 60th Legislative session will address these studies when they convene in 2007. North Dakota has no restrictions on the number of sportsmen that wish to participate in hunting and fishing activity within our state. Even with the level of habitat where it is today, it is questionable weather; we currently have enough habitats to support current sportsman numbers and pressure on the wildlife resources. Many will argue against this point aggressively but the fact remains if CRP goes the way of the tile and plow unsavory changes in license allocation, prices and wildlife management will need to be made.

I want North Dakota to prosper and many acquainted with me say I have a one-track mind, I do. I am at peace in the elements of the outdoors. I would like everyone to be able to experience this feeling at least once in their life, where traffic jams, cell phones, weather worries, business meetings, quotas and stress are replaced by camaraderie, sunrises, sunsets and the sounds and smells of nature. Conservation and preservation of nature must find a balance point with economic activity. I for one believe it is possible to find this balance point, it will probably be an unpopular point, however, and the old saying "you can't get something for nothing" is relevant.

I would like to hear you opinions and ideas on how to make it work. I have been away from this site for awhile doing some other things that are important to me, and I said I was leaving this site permanently. I guess I lied, sorry! In my absents I realized that North Dakota and the heritage of her outdoors is the other love of my life and in need of sportsmen that are willing and bold enough to care, speak up and be active. Sportsman apathy is commonplace in today's outdoor climate. That has to change into activism. The activism has to be committed and constant. Rests assured the opposing parties to some of these views are not resting on their laurels and to date have not offered any willingness to discuss the possibilities. 2007 is not that far away. If you are a member, visitor or lurker of this site and think it will not affect you, respectfully you are wrong. Please do not turn this into another thread of nonresident bashing we need them and they just want a little piece of what some North Dakota residents take for granted. Anyone that hunts in North Dakota pays for our wildlife management system. When is the last time you paid for something, didn't take care of it and expected it to be there when you wanted it, in the condition you wanted it to be and working the way you wanted it to?????

Later
Bob


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Hey Bob, welcome back! Does my heart good to see you in the ring again.
There is no doubt that the screws on habitat are going to tighten. Not much time left to fix it.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Funny, this subject should come up. I walked out of NDSU today and there was a nice meeting going on in front of the Northern Crop Institute. Now this wouldn't normally be a big deal as there are always meetings of various sorts and types going on but there was a nice big Chevy truck parked in front with all kinds of renewable resource stickers and a very large one that said E85 that caught my eye.

What does this have to do with CRP you might ask? Well, those people are looking at ways to make crops more profitable and new legislation mandating change in our fuel use is going to make crop farming much more profitable.

The economic forces are at work and when 2007 rolls around CRP is gone. Its not a question of maybe, you can start the countdown. Which means all of the profit and money ND has gained from wildlife will be gone and all of the fighting and laws and bickering will be for naught guys. It's too late already.

I know for a fact by 2010 the only way you will get on a piece of property with wildlife to hunt unless you own it or your close friends and family do will be to pay. Public land will be covered with hunters chasing limited wildlife because those tracts of public land will not be as plentiful without the flow of animals back and fourth off of good private land. Land that will be covered with corn and soybeans.

Part of the reason I have been looking for the highest paying job I can find. Even if that means I can't live in ND. I fear soon that ND will be like every other state. Huge demand on limited resources.

My only hope is that I can make enough money to buy a piece of the rock and convert it into wildlife habitat sometime in my life. If you really want to make a difference buy a piece of property and keep it in wildlife habitat. Lobbying and talking to politicians will do no good. Pull out your wallets and buy, it's the only thing that will make a difference.

I don't say this to upset or because I am a doom and gloom type of person. I say this because its the truth and its going to happen.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Welcome back Bob....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gandergrinder

I agree, I think you have made a good assessment of what the future holds for hunters. I also think that they will not increase CRP payments. There will be little support from any segment of society. It grows wildlife that only goes to the rich so most people will say it does me no good so to heck with it. We keep changing agriculture programs because for a while they work, but they want their cake and eat it too. Pay for CRP, then it gets hayed, then you pay to hunt.

I don't think E85 ethanol will be big in the future either. It takes more than a gallon of diesel to produce a gallon of ethanol. Ethanol has less energy per gallon, so it will make us even more dependent on the mid east oil. The truth is it is nothing but an agriculture welfare program. The people will go along with it for a few years until they understand what a scam it is and then it will also go the way of the doe doe bird.

The future does indeed look bleak for the future of hunting. It also looks bleak for agriculture. I see us loosing 75 percent of hunters when they can no longer afford access. This will leave us vulnerable to the antihunters, and no amount of land you own will save you. Agriculture on the other hand is tying the anchor to their own neck.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

I was not even afforded the ability to re-sign the CRP, so it doesn't really matter what the payments will be for those that are in the same situation. IMO PLOTS revenue needs to rise to at least cover the taxes on the property. In the event of this increase in income North Dakota may be able to secure or even surpass the targeted goal of one million acres of habitat land instead of 600,000 acres of good habitat land and 400,000 of throw in that we all know will not support a rodent! It will take money to do this, how about raising the ND certificate price from a buck to 5 bucks? a 1/4 cent sales tax on hunting supplies purchased in ND? allocations from lottery profits? I am not in favor of raising prices for sportsmen but are there any other ideas out there? dream it up get it proposed and go with it. The only way this issue will ever get anywhere is for sportsmen to involved.

The land I refer to, CRP payments or not will continue as it is today, habitat.

Jed you may be right, but I am a "glass half full" kinda guy and I do believe that with the proper leverage and sportsman involvement ways can be found to counter this trend. Right now the legislature is listening to the ones that are talking to them and it ain't the sportsmen that have the biggest stake in this that are doing the talking. We are ignored because we are a large group of "Alpha" individuals that are not united, focused and active.

Thanks to all
Later
Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Lately, I've been wondering if the glass even exists. I don't know what that says about me. :-?

I would like to see ND do as you suggested and allocate a certain percentage of the tax money from hunting supplies to a program as you suggested Bob.

What would a farmer be willing to take per acre to keep their land in CRP?
Average cropland rent value in their area? I am wondering how much money it would take per year to keep all of ND's CRP.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Good to have you back Bob!

I think this is going to be a huge transition period for ND. There are going to be 3 things that happen.

1. It gets dug up and planted to crops.

2. Non-residents purchasing hunting land will increase dramatically and we are going to see huge hikes in land prices (more than what a local can afford whether a farmer or not).

3. Single or groups of sportsmen will buy the land so they have a place to hunt.

Numbers 2 is going to be a huge issue with resident sportsmen and local farmers/ranchers. I am sure our wonderful legislation will choose to ignore it once again all while patting themselves on the back again. Even though we have been warning them of this for quite some time.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

OOOPs

3. Single or groups of "resident" sportsmen.....


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

FIrst off let me say Bob it is great to have your wisdom and insight back on the site!! With that said several issues come to mind in regards to the CRP Program, first why are you not allowed to resign your land back into the program? Secondly why is the state of ND only paying about $30.00 per acre per year? My land here in MN is in CRP, the county has already asked me to resign the program and mine does not come out of the program until October of 2008. Also they are paying me $65.00 per acre per year which more than pays the taxes on the portion that is in the program. Lastly if your land is not in the program, that would allow you the freedom to do as you chose to creat better habitat for the wildlife if it is in the program you can not do anything to it accept manage bad weeds. If your land is free you can plant food plots, shelter belts, and native grass, neccesary for nesting and food. The best part is you can rotate your food plots and native grass so as to be able to rest the soil which is so important, for better nutrition of the food plots. Bob I do have one other question for you since you seem to have a good grasp on this issue, how does the state or county determine how much they are going to pay per acre? Isn't the state of ND issued a certain amount of dollars to distribute, and aren't they paid the same as any other state like MN or WI, and if so where are the extra dollars going to?


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I'm taking my CRP out, I think farmed and well managed land provides better food and habitat than CRP ever could. Alot of people have let the noxious weeds and brush take over and it will take decades to get rid of them. I have seen more deer and birds in alfalfa, sunflower and corn fields than any where else in my short lifetime.

The only problem with that is people have to work harder to hunt and also wait untill it can be hunted. Darn that sounds pretty good to me, almost like forced wildlife management.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

JD

the piece of land we are talking about has been in CRP since the early years of the program the payments have not been much, and please excuse me for not mentioning an amount that we receive. We do plant food plots on land adjacent to all of the CRP land we have, we spray for weeds every year and the ground has never been harvested for hay so the net gain over the years has been nil. i am not upset about our CRP being kicked out of the system because I know what is going to happen to it. Nothing but improvements. The local ASCS office rep had a very well rehearsed presentation on why the land does not qualify now. bottom line that I got out of the conversation is funding has been reduced or re-allocated to other areas, and North Dakota has way to much CRP in proportion to the rest of the lower 48.

My big concern was the ASCS Reps statement that 100,000 acres was coming out in 2007 in our County alone multiply that times the number of Counties in North Dakota and wildlife has a serious problem ahead.

Is your land in MN CRP or CREP?

Later
Bob


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Bob,My land is in CRP until oct. of 2008, once the program is over I intend to do everything I mentioned earlier, food plots for deer, pheasants, and waterfowl (as I have lowland that they use for nesting adjacent to the feild) I also intend to get on another program were the DNR pays you to plant trees. I personally feel that anyone who cares about wildlife, and owns land will do more good on there own then with the help of the state or county. There is alot of info available on the net to help newbies like myself get the job done right the first time and not stumble around until you hit the right combination. Oh by the way I was not nudging you to spill the beans about how much you get paid for your land. I know that in norhtern ND I was speaking with a few of the local land managers (farmers) up there and they stated that they got anywhere from $30.00 to $35.00 per acre per year, they flipped out when I told them how much I got for my land. I believe the qoute was " If I got that much for my land I wouldn't even fire up the tractor other than to plow the driveway in the winter. " Also any knowledge about the how the price per acre is determined would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

12


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o

I agree on the wetlands and the logic of the cash rent situation. CRP rules and regulations have always been a moving target. I have hunted CRP that is mostly legumes, other land that is mixed and other land that is straight tall grass like we have. One of the points i was trying to make is that all of the changes over the years resulted from someone asking for change and thinking it would make the system better. Federal Government in its ultimate wisdom has a very poor overall environmental record with the exception of some bright spots for wildlife like CRP, even if it was a surprise by-product. CRP is in a final state of flux because some entity has a lobby effort that has received attention. Sportsmen need to get to this point and be taken seriously.

I find it interesting that Randy K (NDGF) said in the anniversary article that one of the main GF goals was to save the acres of CRP that are out in 2007. Not many specifics just a broad brush statement. Like I said we can get more done by working together than against.

JD 
g/o is correct as to the payment structure for CRP. North Dakota land values are very low in comparison. Sorry wasn't trying to duck you question.

Bob


----------



## GooseBuster3 (Mar 1, 2002)

Welcome back Bob. 8)


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Welcome back Bob, good topic. Bob points out a flaw in the CRP program, and also GG points to future and current pressures. $2.00 gas makes people more susceptible to false claims. The need for people to think something is being done outweighs the truth.

One factor we need to consider and also push when promoting CRP is the other benefits besides wildlife. Much of the reason ND air quality improved over the last 15 years is a direct result of the cleaning affect grasses have in removing carbons and other impurities. Couple that with grasslands being the first and most important filter in recharging aquifers and you add another benefit.

Buckeye from a wildlife point of view I tend to agree with your take, but CRP is more than wildlife. What affect will having those acres farmed do to sediment contamination of wetlands and other waters that your land affects?

Unless we approach this with all these factors we will lose the fight!


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Buckseye,

CRP has a lot of problems, some of which are certainly that "weeds" have found havens in some even many fields. Yet our cropland fileds have never been more productive and are magnitudes cleaner at fractions of the price that it cost even in the 80's to accomplish weed control. How clean will you have our cropland acres before we quit wiping every broad leaved plant on non crop acres in the name of seed bank control???

There are fields of CRP that from the agronomist point of view are beautiful that are not nearly as productive as they could be from a biologists point of view. You have to have those weeds and other broad leaves in there to support the biota that supports the system. And for that reason there is no way that cropland, no matter how well managed can support the ecosystem that CRP does. It might have more deer or pheasants on it at certain times of the year (I reserve my judgement on that score for January and February) but it will never support the non game animals and biota that diverse grassland communities do.

If it makes sound business sense for you to take it out of CRP do it. With the rental rates public and private as well as the ridiculous management policies that are mandated in some cases, ( and in other cases allowed), I think I probably would as well, if I was farming.

But never tell yourself that it is better for the environment. 2+2 does not equal a negative four thank heavens.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

There are still options, just not as many.
*From USDA website: *

http://www.mn.nrcs.usda.gov/partnership ... gram__.HTM

Landowners have the option of enrolling land into the CRP program through the continuous CRP sign-up. With the continuous sign-up, certain practices are automatically eligible and accepted. Landowners receive annual rental payments and up to 90% cost share for cover establishment. Some practices offer extended contracts (up to 15 years), annual payments of
120% of the prevailing cash equivalent rental rates, and /or an up front "signing bonus" of $100-$150 per acre.

Eligible Practices: 
·Filter Strips - A strip of cropland 20' to 120' wide adjacent to rivers, streams, ditches lakes, or certain wetlands that will be established to grasses. The purpose is to filter out sediments and pollutants that would normally enter the water body. Contract length is 10-15 years. Landowners receive 120% of the prevailing cash equivalent rental rate plus $100 - $150 per acre signing bonus.

·Riparian Buffers - A strip of trees 35'to 180'wide are established in cropland or pasture adjacent to rivers, streams, lakes and some ponds. In addition to filtering out sediment and pollutants, the trees will shade the water and reduce water temperatures and provide valuable wildlife habitat. Contract length is 10-15 years. Landowners receive 120% of the prevailing cash equivalent rental rates for cropland or $52.60/acre/year for pastureland plus $100-$150 per acre signing bonus.

·Farmstead Shelterbelts - Up to ten rows of trees can be planted in cropland around a building site to provide protection for livestock and humans, energy conservation, wildlife habitat and aesthetics. Contract length is 10-15 years. Landowner receive the $100-$150 per acre signing bonus.

·Living Snow Fence - Two to five rows or three twin rows of trees can be planted in cropland for the purpose of snow control. Contract length is 10-15 years. Landowners receive the $100-$150 per acre signing bonus.

·Field Windbreaks - One to five rows of trees can be planted around the perimeter of a cropped field for the purpose of wind erosion. Contract length is 10-15 years. Landowners receive 120% of the prevailing cash equivalent rental rate plus $100-$150 per acre signing bonus.

·Grassed Waterways - Cropland areas susceptible to gully erosion are shaped and established to grasses. Contract length is 10 years. Landowners receive 120% of the prevailing cash equivalent rental rate plus $100-$150 per acre signing bonus.

·Shallow Water Areas for Wildlife - Cropland that can be restored back to a wetland can be enrolled.Contract length is 10 years.

If you have comments or suggestions, email me at [email protected]
Benton SWCD
14 West 2nd Ave. Foley, MN 56329 
Tel. (320)968-5300 Ext. 3 
Fax (320)968-5304

[Home] [P & E Launch Pad] [Merchandise] [Conservation Partners] [Conservation Programs]

[Benton Watershed Information] [About Us] [Special Events] [Links] [Featured Cooperator]


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Did anyone here live through the soil bank days?

What happened after they went?

How did things change?


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Yes. They both went to the same place. 0.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

NDKID

answering your questions in order

Yes.

What happened when they went? Plowing, Tile was installed to drain fields and wetlands, Habitat was lost.

How did things change?
Farming got bigger and more profitable, we have fewer Ducks than we did in the 60's and 70's, we have way more Geese, we have more Pheasants than we did in the same period and more deer also. the CRP program was established in part because section line to section line farming was and is today causing excessive soil erosion. You have seen it, in the winter when the snow banks are black along the highways because the soil is blowing into the ditch.

Bob

Bob


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Bob,

to be more precise, after soil bank went out, we had way less pheasants, less of almost everything except maybe huns. It took a major restoration effort to bring back geese, and pheasants never started there climb back out of the doldrums until the advent of CRP. IMHO without CRP it never would have happened.

Soil Bank brought historic highs to many populations and the corresponding crash after it ended. THere is absolutley no reason to think anything else would happen this time.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Thanks Tom

You said it better than me.

Bob


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Thanks guys, that was my thought. But, it is always better to hear it from the horses mouth.

With the Canadian prairies in such rough shape for the ducks this will definitely be a trying time in our sports history as a whole unless some very large planning projects are started on the state level if the federal level does not foresee something. It always seems that we need a good crisis to spur things along.

Another question is could the state level subsidize the local farmers enough, because of the revenue(taxes, licenses, other revenue) that this sport and it's derivatives provide for our state?

Is it something that is feasable?

Can Eco-tourism be large enough to invest in on that level?

http://www.ecotourism.ee/oko/kreg.html


----------

