# Wetland/CRP Update



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

In November-06 a group of ND wildlife organizations drafted a proposal that would help preserve wetlands through the CRP program. It was called Pitch Black. The NDWF, Delta, and MN Ikies were among those that endorsed the idea and it was then advanced to the ND Congressional delegation. Senator Conrad, one of the main architects of the new farm bill, responded, and a meeting with his staff was held in Valley City the winter of 07.

The main gist was that existing wetlands were targeted for destruction under current farm bill incentives. There was little incentive to save the wetland when the program payment was higher to destroy it. Wetlands that had no cropping history were not eligible for CRP enrollment.

Fast forward thru August 09: The Wetland Reserve was restructured with a better payment for willing producers with a much larger allocation of funding for the Wetland Reserve Program than in any other prior year, CP-37 (duck nesting habitat) was well promoted to producers (both maxed out their allotted acres this spring) and now the Wetland Pilot CRP Program (Farmable Wetland Program/CP-41) is open for sign-ups at FSA offices. This program targets smaller tracts of ground and has the outstanding provision that it only needed cropping history in 3 of 10 years.

I queried Senator Conrad's office about the proceedings to implement and expand these necessary CRP programs and this a partial reply:



> North Dakota wildlife and sportsman's groups were exceedingly helpful in making this effort possible. First, they have an understanding of the challenges producers and landowners face with these excessively wet years, and they want to find solutions that meet those challenges and provide better habitat possibilities at the same time.
> 
> Senator Conrad had direct conversations with Congressman Collin Peterson during the final negotiations. This was critical because few others had an appreciation for the landowners perspectives. Collin did appreciate the situation and his connections to Pheasants Forever were critical in gaining support within the House Ag Committee.
> 
> ...


A hats off to Senator Conrad and Representative Peterson for their efforts.

The benefits of this action should help control flooding, improve water quality, retain and build wildlife habitat, and...... cut down on the smoke of burning cattails in October.  It pays to get involved.


----------



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

Congrats Dick!

Hats off to all those organizations for stepping up and lending a hand!

:beer:


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

That was a group effort by many organizations. There are two other items of note that I forgot to include above.

The first is that Rep. Collin Peterson and Rep.Tom Harkin have forwarded a letter to the Sec. of Agriculture recommending a reduction in Federal crop insurance coverage for converted native grasslands into grain crops. These new acreages show a disproportionate share of insurance claims. Tony Dean must be sitting on a cloud smiling now, as this was his baby.

The second is that the Red River Basin Commission is taking public comment on ideas for flooding mitigation. They will want comment from you. Now is the time to speak out. Will have an address posted up shortly.

http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/a ... id/129109/


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

The farmers burn cattails in the fall to burn up canada thistle seeds. These potholes serve as a reservoir for prohibited noxious weeds. When spring highwater marks receed, weeds love that mud that isn't grassed over. The Sheyenne River in your area Dick is a mess. Wormwood, Musk Thistle, Canada Thistle, Leafy Spurge, Burdock you name it. I was in a small town over there and the people had this stuff growing right up to the porch. The fields were beautiful because conventional equipment can keep up with chemical. But every fence line, tree row, abandoned farm and POTHOLE were a reservoir. And what is it that you want? More reservoirs!! More weeds = more chemical = more ducks??? First you need to clean up the weeds.

And who is going to pay for CP-41? It seems you don't want people to think to much about how this program will be funded. The federal government already has an 11 trillion dollar deficit. It will need to confiscate more and more money from an already foundering economy to somehow pay for these conservation bills.

Recently Congress passed the Teaming with Wildlife Act. 350 million dollars from oil and gas lease money destined for the general treasuary was diverted to wildlife conservation. To keep wildlife from becoming threatened or endangered. It seems to me that the real endangered species is fast becoming a person with a job and the ability to pay taxes.

Dick, Have you and the boyz (the group) at NDWF ever seen a federal conservation spending bill you didn't like?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

DG said:


> And who is going to pay for CP-41? It seems you don't want people to think to much about how this program will be funded.


How come most farmers never ask where the money is coming from when Conrad secures billions for farm subsidies and disaster payments? :huh:



DG said:


> Dick, Have you and the boyz (the group) at NDWF ever seen a federal conservation spending bill you didn't like?


I'm not sure what the answer is to that...I do know that most farmers have seen many farm bills they don't like...there's never enough money in them, they always want more.

$350 million is chump change when you look at the hundreds of billions dumped into farming that taxpayers subsidize.

I find it terribly hypocritical that many farmers are so fiscally conservative, and think all federal spending is wasteful...except for the heaps of money they dole out for agriculture.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Farmers are the most greedy people in the world and they are also the only businessman that can not make money but still be able to function with the insurance programs. :eyeroll:


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Speaking objectively and agronomically, burning thistle plants in the fall no matter where in the landscape they are found has extraordinarliy little impact compared with many other noxious weed control techniques. Even simple burning of grass stands infested with rosette thistles has little if any impact on the following years thistly crops. In reality the seed has dispersed from the plants by the time fields are harvested enough to burn, and simply burning dispersed seeds with simply burn the fluff off the seed and drop it uninjured to the ground.

Fall is a wonderful time to control thistles, but they need to be properly set up for the control during the summer first for maximum impact.

The other issue is the impact that CRP has as a weed seed reservoir and that reservoirs impact on crop production on adjoining land. That one I am not even going to stick a big toe into...

CP41 will be a very useful program that will do many of the things it was meant to do. To all who had a hand in getting it enacted, kudos to you....


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bl, matt, nice comments. And people on here actually wonder why more and more land in ND is getting posted with attitudes and comments like that. I guess you can always blame it on guiding and NR!

Dick you're a farmer, why don't you explain to people like this that the USDA farm subsidy payments have a tenfold multiplier affect on the consumer who is the ultimate benefactor everytime they go to the grocery store and buy the safest, cheapest, most readily avalible food of any nation.

Have there been ill concieved, poorly thought out farm programs that some have taken advantage of? Of course, it's a govt program, which many of us in ag would just as soon phase out. But for someone to whine about a farm subsidy while paying the lowest percentage of their disposable income on food of any developed nation is probably as hypocritical as anything and indicates a lack of understanding of this nations "cheap food policy".[/quote]


----------



## Sportin' Woodies (Jun 26, 2006)

> Farmers are the most greedy people in the world and they are also the only businessman that can not make money but still be able to function with the insurance programs.


how about let free market reign in ag commodities, do away with subsidies, and see how much you ***** about the cost of a loaf of bread.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

gst said:


> bl, matt, nice comments. And people on here actually wonder why more and more land in ND is getting posted with attitudes and comments like that. I guess you can always blame it on guiding and NR!
> 
> Dick you're a farmer, why don't you explain to people like this that the USDA farm subsidy payments have a tenfold multiplier affect on the consumer who is the ultimate benefactor everytime they go to the grocery store and buy the safest, cheapest, most readily avalible food of any nation.
> 
> Have there been ill concieved, poorly thought out farm programs that some have taken advantage of? Of course, it's a govt program, which many of us in ag would just as soon phase out. But for someone to whine about a farm subsidy while paying the lowest percentage of their disposable income on food of any developed nation is probably as hypocritical as anything and indicates a lack of understanding of this nations "cheap food policy".


[/quote]

I do farm and I understand the subsidy payment and the whole nine yards. And as for farmers posting up land they will do that regardless and then complain about the damage the wildlife does to their crops. Farming is no longer farming, its a business which is a good and a bad thing and I have seen the bad first hand Dwayne Huber and his insurance scams.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

bl, your statement "farming is no longer farming, its a business" ? Farming has always been a business. And like any business that deals with govt programs there are those that push past the limits of what these programs were designed to do. Does this make your statement "farmers are the most greedy people in the world" go over very well with many of the producers that don't and that have left their lands open to the public to hunt? Probably not. And as they hear and run into more and more of these types of comments and attitudes, many simply become fed up and say enough is enough. I see it and hear it quite often anymore from many people that never before posted anything. But like usual, many on here will simply blame it on guiding, NRs, landowners being jacka$$es or something else, and not accept their part in it.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> Have there been ill concieved, poorly thought out farm programs that some have taken advantage of? Of course, it's a govt program, which many of us in ag would just as soon phase out. But for someone to whine about a farm subsidy while paying the lowest percentage of their disposable income on food of any developed nation is probably as hypocritical as anything and indicates a lack of understanding of this nations "cheap food policy".


Isn't also fair to say that those farm subsidies not only protect consumers but also protects the family farmer from being overrun during bad times?

IMO a lot of non-farmers only see the abuses or what they conceive as the bad part of the farm payments. The flip side is that a lot of farmers that are about 20-40 yr old producers forget how much the general public has helped them out in return. It is a two way street. [/quote]


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

TK Yes it is partially fair to say that. But because of the nature of some of the programs (heres where the the ill conceived, poorly thought out part comes in) not every "family farmer" recieves the same levels of "protection" from a particular program. I'm simply pointing out what it seems a majority of consumers don't understand about what the dollars that go into this system provide for them and how ultimately they benefit as well. For every one of "their tax dollars" that are allocated to the farm program, of which for most people it is literally mere pennies, they save a large multiplier of this "investment" each time they got to the grocery store when compared to costs in other countries because of these very program "subsidies". I would be willing to bet that if you sat outside of a grocery store in a large city and asked the people coming out if they thought the subsidy payments farmers recieved were a good investment of their tax dollars a majority would say no. So when the "my tax dollars" farm argument comes out I simply point out the benefits many forget they recieve. 
So do you think this "two way street" is helped out any by posts like the two above???


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

gst, I realize that the consumer benefits a lot from those subsidies in the form of cheap food and consistent prices. I also realize that conservation programs are a benefit. There is a return on the money put into programs like CRP. Which is why I believe in both. You can either be behind both, or neither, but to imply one is great and the other is throwing money down a rathole (like DG did), is hypocritical.

If farming wasn't subsidized the way it is, and with laws as anti-corporate and frankly anti-capitalist as there are, there wouldn't be any family run farms left. You talk about a free market, and yet the Ag community has been responsible for routinely shooting down DU (and other conservation groups) from purchasing land, even though they're offering the most money and the landowner wants to sell. The famers in the valley planting sugar beets weren't pushing for a free market in 2005 when CAFTA was passed.

Many farmers play it both ways. They talk about capitalism and a free market when there is a bumper crop and quickly become socialists as soon as things get bad...I suppose just like the majority of the people in this country.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Matt only speaking for myself, any comments regarding "free markets" were directed at the production side of ag. There are becoming fewer and fewer of us that wish this determined what we got for what we produce. Unfortunately because of the govts cheap food policies in concerns for the consumer/voter, govt involvement is the name of the game and you either learn to work with it or you get out of the business one way or another. To lay this blame for "farm subsidies" all on the farmer is simply wrong or misguided.

The issue of DU and other nonprofits buying land and it's consequences is seperate and has been fairly thouroughly discussed previously. If you are suggesting that ND anti corporate farming laws are anti capitalist and should be abolished so that DU can buy land here in ND, ask yourself 2 questions, what would you be paying for your food if these multinational corporate food giants controled all production from start to finish, and what conservation practices or acres these corps. would have here in this state. The anti corporate farming law has done more to protect more conservation acres than all the wildlife groups projects combined.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

But the land that DU and other organisations want to buy is crap farm land, so what good does it do for the people when the farmers farm crap land just for the insurance?


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

gst,
Interesting point about the anti-corp farming laws and conservation acres.Suspect its true.Thanks.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

gst said:


> If you are suggesting that ND anti corporate farming laws are anti capitalist and should be abolished so that DU can buy land here in ND, ask yourself 2 questions, what would you be paying for your food if these multinational corporate food giants controled all production from start to finish, and what conservation practices or acres these corps. would have here in this state. The anti corporate farming law has done more to protect more conservation acres than all the wildlife groups projects combined.


I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that some farmers should stop talking about free markets and capitalism while also advocating anti-corporate/anti-capitalist Ag laws. It's hypocritical.

Great point on the conservation side of the law, it's a new perspective I haven't heard. I'm not trying to insult farmers, which is why I've attempted to be careful to say "many", or "some" ("most" was a mistake on my part)...there are lots of farmers who don't do what I've said and I'm not trying to paint all farmers with the same, broad brush stroke. With that being said, I think I've been fair in labeling the idealogy of a few as contradictory and self-serving. Farming is a tough...I wouldn't want to do it...so I don't want to come off as condescending. But I get provoked by empty rhetoric such as what DG said.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Been out of the loop for a bit with wheat harvest. I sign up for the farm program and do take the payments. If a farmer doesn't, he may lose his "base acres" and never get them back, regardless where prices go in the future. Not trying to defend it. It's a fact of life in farming. I've often thought Uncle Sam buys farmers off with the payments in return for a modest control of the food supply. It would be hard to think of any sector in the economy that isn't subsidized. JMO.

The farmable wetlands program is a boon to wildlife and conservation of land and water. If society can get improved water quality, flood prevention, and conservation too, it seems like a good program to me. Better than condeming land for another dam.


----------



## Harlow (Aug 11, 2009)

Dick this is an amazing program all paid for by taxpayer dollars to your mail box.

It will improve water quality, could you enlight us on how this will be done?

Flood prevention,this will make the people in Fargo feel better knowing that another CRP payment will save thier homes now.

The best part of all no more dams that ALL the poeple can use just by sending another taxpayer CRP payment to you.

Yes Dick this is a great program, You have every right to collect this payment, as you believe in landowners rights. Don't you??


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

"Harlow"? :wink: Sweet.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

Dewey is back again.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

It would jave been better PR if the Farm Bills had been labeled "America's Program for Cheap Food"

*The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub.L. 110-234, 122 Stat. 923, enacted May 22, 2008, H.R. 2419, also known as the 2008 U.S. Farm Bill) was a $288 billion, five-year agricultural policy bill that was passed into law by the United States Congress on June 18, 2008. The bill was a continuation of the 2002 Farm Bill. It continues the United States' long history of agricultural subsidy as well as pursuing areas such as energy, conservation, nutrition, and rural development.[1] Some specific initiatives in the bill include increases in Food Stamp benefits, increased support for the production of cellulosic ethanol, and money for the research of pests, diseases and other agricultural problems.* 

I'm also glad I can seek permission for hunting from farmers rather than some corporate conglomerate.


----------

