# Johnson wants more CRP land opened to grazing



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Johnson wants more CRP land opened to grazing*

Jul 02, 2008 - 04:05:47 CDT
By JAMES MacPHERSON 
Associated Press Writer
North Dakota's agriculture commissioner wants the most sensitive conservation wetland areas in the state open to grazing to help drought-stricken ranchers.

"We want it, like, right now," Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said Tuesday.

His request, in a letter to federal Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, comes about a week after the federal government opened Conservation Reserve Program land to grazing in 26 North Dakota counties. Ranchers who graze cattle on the CRP land will have their annual payments cut by 25 percent.

Johnson said opening the so-called CP23 acres would provide cattle with better forage than typical CRP land, which normally is left idle to protect against erosion. Farmers receive payments to plant cover such as grass on the land. CP23 acres are set aside for wetlands restoration.

"CP23 tends to be more lower-lying lands and close to waters, and as a result, it tends to have better forage on top of it," Johnson said. "It also is interspersed among other CRP acres, so if you want to graze it, you've got to fence it out."

Jay Hochhalter, a conservation specialist with the Farm Service Agency in Fargo, said about 20 percent of the 3 million acres of CRP in North Dakota are enrolled in the CP23 program.

"CP23 is specifically aimed at restoration of wetlands," Hochhalter said. "Grazing on it will have less of an impact on it than mowing or haying, but it certainly will have an impact on our program."

The federal government allowed haying and grazing on CP23 acres in 2006 in North Dakota.

Johnson is the chairman of the state's Agricultural Drought Task Force. It has about two dozen members, including representatives of the state Agriculture Department, the Game and Fish Department and the FSA.

Johnson said the task force made the recommendation earlier to allow grazing on CP23 acres but it was not included in Schafer's announcement last week.

"We're thankful we got something, but the CP23 acres were a significant omission," Johnson said.

In May, Schafer said the federal government would open millions of acres of CRP land nationwide to haying and grazing after birds have finished nesting on grasslands this summer. Johnson said ranchers need access to that now.

"A lot of folks are clamoring to get that opened earlier," he said.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

What part of North Dakota is still in a drought? This is starting to look like just another rip off to me. It's like going to the grocery store and paying the grocer for a loaf of bread, but in this case the grocer gets to keep the bread after I pay. Enough is enough. Drought is one thing, but this is beginning to look like just another agriculture windfall.



> Ranchers who graze cattle on the CRP land will have their annual payments cut by 25 percent.


Pay it all back or keep the cows off it. Is it really a drought, or bargain basement grazing? The taxpayer pays for it, then it's nearly given back, then we pay for the beef, then we pay to hunt on it. What a deal. When it goes back to grain we can pay support prices, and disaster payments.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I agree Plainsman.....you graze......you get NO payment at all.

What will all these ranchers do when there is no Conservation Haying/Grazing Program?Should be one heck of a sale on Beef.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I'm not trying to be a smart alec but I thought ND was having a record rainfall year this year. Where is the draught?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> What will all these ranchers do when there is no Conservation Haying/Grazing Program?


If this happens I will not take them serious again. Cry wolf, get paid.  I remember the haying thing. Pay back a little and sell their hay at a big profit. They did try to stop that. So what happens this year they pay back 25% and rent their CRP at full pasture rental value or more? If this is the way they are going to screw the system (taxpayer) lets just forget all ag programs. After all agriculture is as big or bigger than defense. Drop it all and it should save me two to three thousand in taxes. I could pay to hunt. 
I do have a question. If a person pays $20,000 in taxes how much would you estimate goes to Agriculture?


----------



## Boonedog (Sep 10, 2006)

You only have to pay a $75.00 administrative fee to hay/graze CRP, otherwise no cost. You do not have to pay the 25% of the payment.

The total ag department budget is around 3% of the total budget so that works out to about $600.00 out of $20,000.00 paid in. That includes the USDA nutrition programs and many other programs so actual $'s going to farmers is alot less.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Boonedog said:


> You only have to pay a $75.00 administrative fee to hay/graze CRP, otherwise no cost. You do not have to pay the 25% of the payment.
> 
> The total ag department budget is around 3% of the total budget so that works out to about $600.00 out of $20,000.00 paid in. That includes the USDA nutrition programs and many other programs so actual $'s going to farmers is alot less.


Thanks for the info. At one time someone posted that the cost of the Department of Defense was about 20% of our taxes, and that ag was about the same size.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

What did they do BEFORE CRP????????????????????????????


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I remember in the early 60's they opened "soil bank" lands up to haying. I drove the tractor with 2x4's on the pedals :lol: Dad beat on the baler and rode the skid.

Bob


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

CRP is light soils that were being farmed. Much will produce great alfalfa and most is best left to the cows. As world population grows I suppose so will supplies of food. Who would have ever thunk it!


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Our CRP can be hayed once every three years or 1/3 every years. The payment is reduced substantially, close to 1/3, on those acres but no administrative fee is paid.

This is actually beneficial to the wildlife as 6 and 7 years old CRP doesn't have the food value and the with all the dead crap in it the chicks have a tough time moving around in it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> This is actually beneficial to the wildlife as 6 and 7 years old CRP doesn't have the food value and the with all the dead crap in it the chicks have a tough time moving around in it.


I often hear this, but I assure you it is not correct. The CRP isn't important as food value, it's important as nesting cover and thermal winter cover. 
As far as chicks getting out I can't tell you much about upland game, but I can tell you that thick cover will not inhibit waterfowl. Just an educated guess, but I would think upland birds would be a lot better in thick habitat than ducklings. For the above reasons cutting should never occur before nesting is complete, and as far as winter cover, well that's shot for the year.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > This is actually beneficial to the wildlife as 6 and 7 years old CRP doesn't have the food value and the with all the dead crap in it the chicks have a tough time moving around in it.
> 
> 
> I often hear this, but I assure you it is not correct. The CRP isn't important as food value, it's important as nesting cover and thermal winter cover.
> As far as chicks getting out I can't tell you much about upland game, but I can tell you that thick cover will not inhibit waterfowl. Just an educated guess, but I would think upland birds would be a lot better in thick habitat than ducklings. For the above reasons cutting should never occur before nesting is complete, and as far as winter cover, well that's shot for the year.


I'm not so sure if it is not correct, I just know what I see. I know when you walk through 6-7 year old CRP in August it has a lot of old dead stuff in it and crunches when you walk. When I walk through a stand of CRP that was cut a year ago it is greener, less tangled and a wider variety of plants growing. It sure seems it would have better food value, and I know the informaion I read from DU and Pheasant Forever agree. I've also observed more nesting in the newer growth than the older, especially where we have look at the 300 acres of waterbank that went uncut for more than 10 years.

I agree that the winter cover is gone, but that's why 2/3 of the cover is left every 3 years and nothing is cut the 4th year and then the cycle restarts.

While you want to assure me this is not correct, I'll have to disagree and go with what I see, rather than what I'm told.

As far as saying the CRP is not important as food value, what do those newly hatched chicks eat, mothers milk? What is the green plant like material one often finds in the crop of game birds harvested?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> What is the green plant like material one often finds in the crop of game birds harvested?


It's not grass. Ironically it's the weedy fields that your neighbors don't like that provides the most food for birds. 
New growth or old it's residual cover that provides nesting habitat. If the winter cover is gone, so is the spring nesting habitat. Your probably seeing more young in last years cutting, but that just means your seeing them, not that there are more there. It's like seeing more hunters in orange than you do camo.

You may see a few more species when you cut because you open the canopy cover. You would see even more if you burned.

I sure would like to know who in DU and Pheasants Forever think haying is good for wildlife. They certainly are going against the science. It sounds like guys telling you what you want to hear for some reason.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

So when I've harvested a pheasant or sharptail in an alfalfa field and their crop has green plant material those green things that look like alfalfa are really weeds?

Pheasants forever has a small book about land use that I've used for my guidelines. They talk about haying as a management tool done a portion at a time. We do 1/3 every 4 years, I read where the optimum is about once every 5 years. I'll find the book tonight and let you know the title of it.

Went back and found this on a post here a while back.
Research shows the actual optimum rejuvenation period is every five to six years, not every three. I do 1/3 every 4 years. If I lived in Utopia I would do 1/5 each year.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So when I've harvested a pheasant or sharptail in an alfalfa field and their crop has green plant material those green things that look like alfalfa are really weeds?


No that isn't what I said, I said: "It's not grass". I have looked in hundreds of grouse crops myself. Even further down into the proventriculus. Insects, seeds, and forbs are the majority of what is injested, including alfalfa. I find Shepherdia argentea (Buffalo berry)most often out west, and Symphoricarpos occidentalis (Buck brush) in crops around this area of the state.

Haying, grazing, and burning are all good management tools. Burning first, grazing, second, and I would place haying last. It isn't a primary advantage to the birds, but over time it helps to maintain the habitat. With to much build up it isn't good for some plant species, and it allows invasion by undesirable species. Your right about the value, I just disagree with the reasons for the value. Also, your right about timing. It of course depends on the species (plants and animals) your managing for, and the undesirable plant species your managing against. The sequence in years is important, and perhaps even more important is the time of season. Unfortunately sometimes the best time to control a plant species isn't the best time for the birds nesting in the habitat. You will have to decide if sacrificing the habitat for one year will be a net desirable species increase over time.

It sounds like your doing a good management job, I just didn't want the science associated with it misunderstood. I once had a guy tell me that the ducks were all going to die if he didn't cut the grass down and let them out. I don't know what the ducks in North America did until he came along with his mower. He had a permit to mow a Waterfowl Production area, he was just ten miles off, and on his second one.


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

We are talking in circles here, but here is my best explanation of haying and grazing CRP this year.

If you elect to participate and are eligible for the "Emergency" then you have to pay back 25% of your payment and you can graze earlier, I think soon, but I amnot in one of those counties and am not sure. But you can graze all of it I beleive, regardless of when it was last done.

If you have "Managed haying and grazing" on your CRP lands, then starting August 2nd you can hay or graze according to the 1/3rd each year or all every three. this requires repayment at 25% of payment.

The big one this year is going to be the "Critical Feed Use" designation USDA has released. Basically they are saying that because other feed costs are so high (read $7.00 corn) the USDA is offering a way to provide low cost winter feed supplies. Producers can hay basicallyanything but CP23 acres and pay only a 75$ administrative fee. No payment reduction at all. they can only hay 50%, and if grazed they have to stock light. What is most interesting, is that in the past only the owner or operator has been able to hay the CRP. If anyone else did, like wen they sent hay out west, the rules said they could only charge an amount equivalent ot hte payment reduction. In other words they could not make a profit on the transaction. Not so this year. This year, producers can hay the hay themselves, keep or sell the hay, or lease the rights to hay with no restrictions. In fact you can even lease rights for whatever is deemed agreable and the custom hay operator can then sell the hay for whatever he can get.

There are many more options to hay than there have been in the past.

The information above is to the best of my knowledge and should only be valued as such.

research suggests that management every fifth or sixth year is the most positive for grassland nesting birds, and anectdotal information would suggest light disking or heavy harrowing as more impactful than haying.

Good conversation, keep it up.

Tom


----------



## Boonedog (Sep 10, 2006)

redlabel said:


> Where does this BS come from?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you call it BS? I was refering to the emergency haying and grazing of the non CP23, the land that has already been opended up to haying and grazing August 2nd.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

Boonedog said:


> redlabel said:
> 
> 
> > Where does this BS come from?
> ...


You are correct, and I did not realize there was a change. I was not aware there is a "Critical Feed Use" designation this year. My post was based on previous years.

I've corrected my original statement and apologize to you and to the readers of this forum for posting inaccurate information.

Sorry.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You are correct, and I did not realize there was a change. I was not aware there is a "Critical Feed Use" designation this year. My post was based on previous years.
> 
> I've corrected my original statement and apologize to you and to the readers of this forum for posting inaccurate information.
> 
> Sorry.


You know redlabel, we might disagree on some things some times, but I sure respect your response to Boonedog. Things like this happen so seldom I just have to take the time to complement you. :thumb:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

I dont know if any of you are aware of it, but this week the NWF and the SDWF along with several of states WF's filed a lawsuit regarding this critical feed use designation. As of today all of this activity "Critical feed use" is suspended nationwide.

Apparently someone thought the door had been thrown open a bit too wide.

TJ


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

> I dont know if any of you are aware of it, but this week the NWF and the SDWF along with several of states WF's filed a lawsuit regarding this critical feed use designation. As of today all of this activity "Critical feed use" is suspended nationwide.
> 
> Apparently someone thought the door had been thrown open a bit too wide.


I don't see this going well. There will be a greater division between landowners and sportsman over this deal with retaliation coming this fall.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> NFU: Producers Frustrated by CRP Court Decision
> 
> WASHINGTON (July 11, 2008) - National Farmers Union President Tom Buis said today that a U.S. District Court decision to issue a temporary restraining order halting Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) critical feed acres is the wrong move.
> 
> ...


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I wonder if Dick Monson and the NDWF are part of this also :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Maybe they should start selling cattle????


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

As much as I can sympathize with the plight of the ranchers, this stay of haying is long overdue and I think the courts when this shakes out will rule that the contracts will have to be followed.

As I said before, many ranchers have shifted to CRP hay as their primary source of food stock. CRP while an Ag program was never intended to be used as primary food stock. G/O, Ken's comment may seem harsh, but I know of three large ranchers out in west central ND that have expanded herds over the last few years during drought conditions because of the supply of CRP food stock. At the same time as commodity prices rose, alfalfa and other hay land they owned was turned under and planted into beans and other crops.

The other thing about this issue is that with the loss of CRP statewide, where will they go when these conditions occur?

There are already provisions in place to allow haying or grazing on a rotation basis. Opening additional haying earlier while increasing the quality of the hay also puts wildlife both game and non game species in jeopardy some of which are on the endangered species list. Farmers Union and other Ag groups would be best served to not push this issue. I highly doubt those landowners want the stipulation of having nesting Endangered species on their property.

While I don't always agree with NWF on its actions, they got this one right!!!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> While I don't always agree with NWF on its actions, they got this one right!!!!!!


Tell that to the boys in Jud next time your home :lol: :lol: :lol:

Here are some more groups you are involved with Ron;



> Also, today several wildlife groups wrote to USDA Secretary Ed Schafer asking him not to approve a penalty free early out on CRP acres to bring them back into production for the 2009 growing season.
> 
> USDA has been urged to release up to 24 million acres from CRP - roughly three-fourths of the land currently enrolled in the program - and put it back into production, the groups said. "A penalty-free early release of the magnitude you are considering - millions of acres - would deliver a devastating blow to the nation's soil, water, and wildlife habitat, and significantly increase global warming," said the letter.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O all but a handful of people I have talked with see early out options as being good. We go around and around over this, and like it or not even groups who are against hunting sometimes are right on other issues. The scare tactics of association because they happen to see the reality of water quality loss, soil erosion, increased flooding, increased loss of wetlands etc.. the issue at hand is exactly as was stated. Most of the land is marginal and should not be farmed or was not farmed until the Gov in the 70's paid to break it up. Those lands are what they are crying to open up!

So you break up all the grass land and just where in the heck will these same people who want the haying opened go?

Simple logic applies here and I would say that most people in my home area seem to have that gene! If they do not down in your neck of the woods, it may be that the poor water quality from all the lost grassland has allowed to many chemicals into the water supply and has affected that gene!!!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ron, Like always your typical comment is all but a handful of people I talked to. The handful of people are the boys you have coffee with everyday and thats it. On the other hand Ronnie I'm in rural ND and in touch with farmers and ranchers and understand how they feel. For your info the CRP acres released were to help ranchers cope with short hay and high priced corn. I for one would like to help the ranchers, because unlike you Ronnie I know what it is like to pay for feed at $7.00 corn. I am not surprised at the your feelings, you guys try to stick it to rural ND anytime you get a chance.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O maybe you should buy some corn from the ethanol plant in Hankinson since they bought a bunch at lower prices and now are looking to sell it at the higher rate.

See G/O there is a big difference between helping out those that are struggling with hay shortage due to drought who have not converted pasture and native prairie to beans and those who have looked at CRP as an annual source of feed stock. That is what you are missing in this and is the thing that many back home look at also. Just down the road from Troy's place 160 acres of ground along the Bone Hill Creek was broken up this past spring. It was native prairie and is not fit for crop. Recent rains have flooded much of the ground, erosion from washing has washed into the creek bed.

The person who had been renting that pasture deserves some help, but the guy who is farming that land also runs cattle and has broken almost all of his pasture up and is competing with others for hay land. So the farmers and cattlemen are part of the problem as they are their own worst enemies when it comes to these things.

So once again G/O it is all about proper perspective. Corn would not be $7.00 a bushel without the push for ethanol something Farmers Union was behind and still is. Now that we have both drought and flooding affecting corn acres and also grass land and cattle ranchers and others are now competing for those bu of corn once used for feed stock and now being dumped into gas tanks they have painted themselves into a corner.

You expect everyone who has a concern for water quality, erosion and flooding to roll over because it did not rain? Just so you know, we where dry just as you where. Our hay on the farm is up. While overall quanity is down it is not down significantly and recent continued moisture is going to result in a very good second crop of alfalfa and most likely a second cutting of much of the other upland hay. We expect to have an equal amount of good quality hay as we did last year. Our area is not unique in this. Pastures rebounded as well.

So paint the victim picture all you want, but the reality is that delayed haying is not going to cost much in quality or quantity at this juncture. If the CRP had been hayed last year, there was not much growth until recent rains. If it had not been hayed and the people where looking at the old growth from last year as bulk then waiting into Aug is not going to change the quality of that hay compared to this years.

We ran beef cattle, and put up a lot of hay right through grain harvest and later. Funny thing is that the cattle did very well on stem cured grasses. In fact they would seek this hay out over other hay during feeding. They ate and then laid down satisfied. Yet many times that green hay seemed to not satisfy the cattle.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good post Ron,

I have a Botany minor, much of which is range management. Plants don't watch the calendar, but those who would like to parasitize the system would like you to think so. From the time a plant becomes active until it sets seed will remain the same whether the plant becomes active the first of May or the first of June. Drought if it begins after plants have become active greatly affects the plant. Drought in early spring retards plant activity and has little affect on the quality of the hay or the rangeland later in the year if good rains are received slightly late in the season. Good rains in late May or early June result in very good hay and pasture, but at a slightly later date. 
Some people are just so used to having their cake and eating it too that if it stops they cry to high heaven. Give them CRP they buy more cattle, give them more CRP they buy more cattle. Ken was right, sell some cows.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Some folks have lawyers do their asking and the rest of us do our own. If it wasn't such a big part of the economy I'm sure it would be a lot different.

How about Airlines, don't you think they are subsidised. What do you need more an airplane ride or food when you want and all you want.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Like always Ronnie your argument holds no water. You must have sniffed way to much cleaning fumes to even suggest that I should travel to Hankinson to buy corn.

Again you point to one incident where one person broke up some ground that may or may not have been broken. Flooding Ron according to your people at NWF claim it's because of Global Warming.

Just because your area received rain does that mean we all did? Hardly your home area had over an inch last week we got zip. So tell the rancher who has no crop that only hays and buys corn, to "sell his cows". So you have a place to hunt, pretty selfish Ron. But what are we to expect from you this is nothing new. Ron only half would be hayed anyway, so it would do nothing to affect the water quality. The difference between you and I Ronnie, is I would like to help my neighbors and the ranchers through out this state.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Where will all these cattle ranchers get feed when CRP is gone?You still haven't answered that one.Will they be buying that $7.00 corn?Or sell off some of their herd????

Once again.......sell some cows.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

No Ken when the CRP is gone some will be using that land for pasture and hay ground. When all of the CRP comes out and gets planted to corn, beans etc. in a few years we will see a glut again and prices will go down. It's called supply and demand.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> No Ken when the CRP is gone some will be using that land for pasture and hay ground. When all of the CRP comes out and gets planted to corn, beans etc


Which is it pasture, hay, or as you say when it all comes out it will be corn and beans. I bet on the corn and beans and they will sell cows. Now they will keep crying so they get more, more, more and free, free, free. Let them graze it but refund 100% of the payment. That will tell me if they really need it, or just want another free present at the expense of the taxpayer.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Funny GO you always attempt to paint others as anti farmer, when in reality the issue at hand is really about when it will be cut. I have no issue with it being opened up. In years past I have and will defend this practice as being part of the intent of the program. What you are attempting to do is make it appear that this ground will not be hayed!

The quality difference between July and August is not that great especially in areas that received rain later. In fact quality and quantity more times than not will be better.

Now how about addressing the issue of where these ranchers are going to get their hay as CRP goes away? Like I said before, a good number of operations are set up for feed supplies being predominately from CRP forage. Just where will they be turning?

You dislike the NWF because of the canned shooting issue and because of that, try and paint all of their activity as being anti farmer. What I see is a organization that is attempting to achieve a slowing of the loss of habitat and practices that have more long term negative affects on all of us.

Recently one of the local news stations did a piece on tiling. Seems somebody at the state level has finally realized that there is a great potential of polluted water being pulled off land over this. There are currently looking into whether or not this is taking place and if any restrictions need to be put in place. Since we can look to MN and south east SD as examples of what can and will happen, I suppose that if NWF comes out in support of better oversight of this, you will claim once again they are anti farmers.

So Jimmyboy all that is taking place is really a month delay in cutting at best.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

> New growth or old it's residual cover that provides nesting habitat. If the winter cover is gone, so is the spring nesting habitat. Your probably seeing more young in last years cutting, but that just means your seeing them, not that there are more there. It's like seeing more hunters in orange than you do camo.
> 
> You may see a few more species when you cut because you open the canopy cover. You would see even more if you burned.
> 
> I sure would like to know who in DU and Pheasants Forever think haying is good for wildlife. They certainly are going against the science. It sounds like guys telling you what you want to hear for some reason.


The information I used came from the Pheasants Forever's "Essential Habitat Guide". In particular the section on Page 25 on Mowing under Managing Nesting Cover. It reads,

*Mowing* of any established cover (for haying, weed or brush control)
should be delayed until after the nesting season has concluded in mid-to-late July. Even then, broods using these areas for feeding need to be considered. In newly established areas, mowing the first year is a good idea if weed competition is severe. The first year of nesting is lost, but you will have better grasslands in the future. After cover is established, mowing segments of the field on a 3-year rotation will keep the vegetation rejuvenated. Leave 8-12 inches of cover after the last cutting, and more if possible with native grass. This is sufficient height to provide some roosting, residual cover for nesting, and to protect plant vigor. If weed control is necessary, use spot mowing rather than blanket applications.

I don't know who wrote the book, but if this information is incorrect you could call them at 1-877-773-2070. I'm sure they would be happy to correct the information.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Mowing is better than nothing for weed control. As I said residual cover needs to be removed once in a while. The three years they talk about is very nebulous. For some species it would be every three, for some species once every five or six would be more beneficial. They took a shotgun approach.

I did notice they said cut it leaving good height. Not like haying for cows. They also mentioned spot mowing, not 30 percent of the cover. They also mentioned that in some cases it was necessary, but that you would loose that years production of birds. That was a lot different than haying for the benefit of cows.

That isn't a bad publication, but it was kept very simple. Actual management of a specific grassland holding in account the plant species would be much more complex. This was written for the average person, not the professional land manager.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

g/o said:


> No Ken when the CRP is gone some will be using that land for pasture and hay ground. When all of the CRP comes out and gets planted to corn, beans etc. in a few years we will see a glut again and prices will go down. It's called supply and demand.


I see no time where there is a glut of corn with ethanol plants continueing to spring up.....so might as well sell cattle now.


----------



## NDrancher (Jul 14, 2008)

You know what I find interesting? It appears that, as usual, the east side of the state is only concerned about themselves and their hobbies. I live in North Central ND and depend on the land to make a living. We farm and ranch and have 2 sons interested in doing the same. People who are selfish (& uneducated in this case) think the whole CRP program was for them - the hunters. WRONG!!! It was designed to take land out of production that was ill suited. Our operation put some acres into the program and the contract has since expired. We did not renew, but neither did we break up the CRP. It is now part of our pasture rotation. You see, since we have started using rotational grazing in our pastures we have learned a lot about grass and soil care. Yep, a little bit of hoofing action and grazing is the best thing for it. We have pasture that borders wildlife land and the wildlife is on our land more than theirs!! The cattle mix just fine with the wildlife. Haying it won't kill that many birds as, around here anyway, there is _*no*_ water for them. (We are using our well to water cattle in the pasture - two trips a day to water 100 head)
I serve on a local county committee for the FSA and have seen a number of acres coming out of CRP. Want to know why? Cuz they are tired of fighting with the ever changing gov't rules - plus $20 wheat sure didn't hurt. The corn acres around here have not been increasing tremdously since many tried it one year and found it was expensive to raise and the market was a distance - if they got a crop at all.

Okay, I will step down off of my podium but I needed to vent. I think some of you need to know there is still a drought in parts of ND (again - one must look west) and many of us are die hard workers and are fed up with selfish hunters and are posting more & more land all of the time.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ndrancher, it's good to hear about good land stewards. Putting that land into pasture was very responsible. If it met the standards for marginal land it should never be grain farmed again. All that will do is require more tax dollar support for production on poor land. 
The last time they tried to renew the CRP program it didn't meet the cost benefit ratio. Some organizations petitioned congress to add wildlife values. They did, and it then met the cost benefit ratio and was passed. Your right the idea was to take marginal land out of production, but in the last bill it was also to provide habitat for wildlife. In that light it is supposed to benefit society as a whole. Mowing it removes much of that benefit. If the need really is there, and it isn't just people increasing their herd at the expense of habitat then let them pay back the entire payment. Would they do that? I doubt it. If the need was real they would.



> selfish hunters


That's a point of view. Another point of view is selfish landowners. They get paid and then they hay or graze. We pay. More land gets posted and there is less support for agriculture. Less support for agriculture and more land gets posted. It's like a puppy chasing his tail. In the end we will both loose, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a one way street of we pay they take. You wonder why some hunters think they are entitled to hunt CRP, and at the same time some hunters wonder what makes landowners think they are entitled to our wallet. It isn't going to be a pretty future.

So what's the solution?


----------



## NDrancher (Jul 14, 2008)

I appreciate your kindness and not ripping me regarding my thoughts. You are correct to say that the CRP is for wildlife (according to the previous ag bill); however, that is only the newly enrolled acres into that particular type of CRP. Acres re-enrolled into CRP and acres newly signed up into other CRP programs (ex. trees) are not necessarily _intended_ to benefit the wildlife. Although I would be nieve to think CRP of any sort is not of some benefit to all aspects of nature (wildlife, wind or water erosion, etc.).



> If the need really is there, and it isn't just people increasing their herd at the expense of habitat then let them pay back the entire payment. Would they do that? I doubt it. If the need was real they would.


I beg to differ. I feel the gov't is renting our land (CRP). If we want to hay a portion of it then we sub-lease so to speak. I don't think it would be fair to lose the whole payment when I am only gettting to use a part of it. Also, I disagree that herds are increasing due to CRP haying in emergency years. We do not know if CRP will be opened up to haying so would be stupid to assume it. (Okay, so maybe we are smarter than some; however, the current lawsuit is proof that we should not assume anything.) I think we are seeing fewer and fewer ranchers. Where we live there is very little CRP available anyway so perhaps I am not looking at a broad enough picture either.



> ... landowners. They get paid and then they hay or graze. We pay.


Least you forget, farmers and ranchers are also taxpayers! Although your analogy to the puppy chasing it's tail does seem quite accurate.

Thank you for broadening this topic - and, hopefully, someone can be educated (whether me or someone else).


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

NDrancher said:


> many of us are die hard workers and are fed up with selfish hunters and are posting more & more land all of the time.


Hence the division. Ndrancher, you are definitely not alone and it is not limited to just the western half landowners.

That is one handle I will not carry *(selfish)* especially when a landowner choses to share *their* land.


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> > selfish hunters
> 
> 
> That's a point of view. Another point of view is selfish landowners. They get paid and then they hay or graze. We pay. More land gets posted and there is less support for agriculture. Less support for agriculture and more land gets posted. It's like a puppy chasing his tail. In the end we will both loose, but that doesn't mean we have to accept a one way street of we pay they take. You wonder why some hunters think they are entitled to hunt CRP, and at the same time some hunters wonder what makes landowners think they are entitled to our wallet. It isn't going to be a pretty future.


Well spoken Plainsman. I don't have a solution but do know I don't want be on the wrong side of the fence on this one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ndrancher, I can tell by your tone your one of those ranchers I would be proud to know.

That said I didn't intend to imply that you give back the entire payment for a quarter section if you only mow 40 acres. I mean that the payment should be returned only for the acres mowed. I agree the government is renting your land.

Sometimes people look at the government as if it has a magic money tree. We all try get everything we can back from them. However, it isn't magic someone is paying. I feel that if you rent to the government you (anyone reading this not you in particular ndrancher) should respect that contract the same as you would one with your neighbor. You would not rent to your neighbor then expect to use the land yourself.

As far as landowners being taxpayers too, you better get a new tax person. I know they pay land taxes, but I have relatives that purchased land just for a tax shelter. I also have a relative that is passed on now that did taxes for about 40 farmers for 40 years. There are so many write offs that they paid nearly nothing all those years. Try paying taxes for a person that is on salary with no tax shelter. Most teachers pay twice in taxes what a farmer with four sections will pay. I have a cousin with 20 sections of land. A couple years ago he didn't have time to visit one December day because he had to run and buy a $180,000 new combine or he was going to have to pay taxes.

Anyway, Ndrancher, I hope you post here often. Somehow just the way you say things makes them come off real, and I can use the education from someone I trust.

Thanks for the complement 4Curl.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Court hearing planned on CRP lawsuit *

By COLLEEN SLEVIN 
Associated Press Writer

DENVER (AP) -- A federal lawsuit challenging a plan to give farmers and ranchers access to millions of acres of idle land is not expected to affect livestock owners in southeastern Colorado who recently won the right to graze on such property.

A hearing in the case brought by conservation groups is scheduled Thursday in Seattle. Last week, Judge John Coughenour issued a temporary injunction to stop Conservation Reserve Program land nationwide from being opened under a U.S. Department of Agriculture plan.

*Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter announced Friday that ranchers in six counties will be allowed immediate access to CRP land for emergency haying and grazing.

Agriculture department spokeswoman Christi Lightcap said the outcome of the Seattle case won't affect the Colorado ranchers there because the land was opened up through an emergency order by the federal Farm Service Agency.*

At issue nationally is more than 24 million acres of environmentally sensitive land that farmers and ranchers are paid to keep idle and plant grass on. The average payment in the Conservation Reserve Program last year was $50 an acre.

In May, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer announced plans to open up all but the most vulnerable CRP land to farmers and ranchers once birds have finished nesting on the grasslands this summer. He said ranchers have been especially hurt by rising feed costs and less available land for grazing.

Coughenour's ruling temporarily stopping the program from taking effect will remain in place until after he rules on whether to make it permanent.

In Colorado, Lightcap said the ranchers in Baca, Bent, Kiowa, Prowers, Phillips and Yuma counties will be allowed on the land through Sept. 30 or whenever emergency conditions end.

That doesn't appear likely any time soon.

The U.S. Drought Monitor says the southeastern corner of the state is experiencing extreme to exceptional drought conditions. Conditions are similar just across state lines in New Mexico, the Oklahoma Pandhandle and Kansas.

The National Weather Service sayssoil moisture on Colorado's southeastern plains is between 40 percent and 80 percent of normal.

Ed Jones, a rancher near Lamar, said his CRP land is not much better than the land his 100 cows are grazing on now. However, FSA officials said he'll still have to pay $7 an acre to use his land even though he'll still have to buy feed like alfalfa to make sure the animals get enough protein.

"If they're going to help us, turn us loose and let us graze it. But don't be trying to get a bunch of fees on us," Jones said by cell phone after hauling water to his cattle on Sunday.

He said that while he's willing to pay the $75 filing fee to use the land, he said he won't use it for grazing if he's charged a per acre fee.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Yep Bob, nice try but what about the other 24 million acres????????



> States and Counties Allowed to graze CRP Acres
> 
> Colorado
> Phillips, Yuma
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> He said that while he's willing to pay the $75 filing fee to use the land, he said he won't use it for grazing if he's charged a per acre fee.


Evidently his cows can live without it. This statement alone makes it look like he wants cheap or even free grazing. No one will pass on that even on good years. Like someone else mentioned: what will they do when CRP is gone. Maybe Obama will give them free hay.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*U.S. judge to limit grazing on conservation land*

Jul 18, 2008 - 04:06:03 CDT
By GENE JOHNSON
AP Legal Affairs Writer
SEATTLE - A federal judge said Thursday he intends to limit how much private conservation land the Bush administration opens to hay production and cattle grazing, after environmentalists cried foul.

In May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that in response to rising grain and food prices, it would allow farmers and ranchers nationwide to make hay or graze their cattle on 24 million acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, a $2 billion-a-year federal program which pays farmers not to plant crops in order to return fields to native vegetation.

The National Wildlife Foundation and its Washington, Indiana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana and Kansas chapters sued, saying the agency didn't properly consider the environmental impact of allowing grazing and haying on the conservation land, especially the effect on grassland birds. Although the grazing and haying would only be allowed from this month through early November, the damage to wintering areas and habitat for the birds, as well as water quality, could last for years, they argued.

U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour temporarily blocked the agency's decision last week. During a hearing Thursday, he extended his temporary restraining order until next Tuesday, calling the USDA's cursory environmental review in support of its decision a "joke."

But the judge also said he appreciates the plight of farmers and ranchers. He said next week he plans to issue an injunction limiting how much of the conservation land can be opened to haying and grazing, and he asked lawyers for both sides to help craft an urgent compromise.

In North Dakota, Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said the Seattle ruling should not affect emergency grazing on CRP land in 26 counties. That land was opened for drought-stricken farmers through an emergency order, he said.

Established in the 1985 federal farm bill, the Conservation Reserve Program is the nation's largest conservation program covering private lands. About 760,000 farmers have enrolled 34 million acres in the program.


----------



## Eric Hustad (Feb 25, 2002)

I have relatives in W. ND that ranch and after seeing how bad things can get I have no problem with haying CRP for cattle especially where there has been drought and people are barely holding on to their livlihoods.

G/O you made a point about farm prices decreasing if the CRP acreage goes into production. Now with input costs high and crop prices high things seem to work out, but if there is rush to plant fencepost to fencepost and prices drop yet input costs stay high then were are headed for more trouble. Just something that comes to mind as I read about the rush out of CRP and into production.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

I have a question about CRP:

I understand that if a farmer/rancher lives in a drought area, they can cut the CRP to save their herd. But can a farmer/rancher that lives in an area of the state that has enough rain cut his CRP and sell/give it to the farmer/ranchers that need it?


----------

