# What to do...CRP loss in 2007?



## smalls (Sep 9, 2003)

About a month ago the issue of the possibility of the conclusion of CRP as we know it was brought up in the Hot Topics forum. Most here understand the importance of CRP to nesting waterfowl and the impact it (CRP) had to the tremendous increases of waterfowl populations during the wet cycle beginning in the early 1990's. As an enourmous portion of CRP is scheduled to expire in the next three years (with the biggest portion in 2007), we stand to lose an integral part of our beloved waterfowl's ecosystem. The next farmbill will likely not be written until 2008, creating a gap which fails to protect current CRP. So...what do we do???

My suggestion is a sportsman initiated and supported program to protect necessary habitat within traditional CRP. Defined riparian zones around wetlands that are integral to nesting birds would be protected on the sportsmen's dollar. It would work like this...

First, a means of financial support must be created (it is essential that sportsmen be the ones to fund such an effort...). My suggestion would be a voluntary "habitat protection stamp" in addition to the manditory habitat stamp required currently. Cost should be something substantial (although someone around here could probably do an elasticity study to find out at what price the maximum benefit would be derived). Another idea would be to lobby for "Habitat" license plates to the state government, by which people would pay extra to support ND habitat, much like other states like Minnesota and Montana have.

Second, North Dakota Game and Fish biologists would survey and choose ideal land for protection (i.e. the land which has the greatest benefit to sportsmen and waterfowl) from existing CRP. The land would likely be riparian or buffer zones between wetlands and farmlands (I will not attempt to define the distance of the buffer zone to be protected as I have no idea what would be necessary to be useful). The lands chosen would be ranked (by importance or potential) by NDGF biologists. How much land that could be protected would be a factor of the money raised through voluntary habitat protection stamps.

Next, landowners would be offered an equivalent payment to their historical CRP payment for the riparian zones chosen by the NDGF. Landowners/farmers would not be paid to keep vast tracks of land out of production, but they would be compensated to keep part of their land out of production.

Lastly, since it is a program initiated and funded by sportsmen, they should have access to the land. So, any tract of ground that has a portion of sportsman funded habitat shall be open to those sportsmen who purchased the voluntary habitat protection stamp.

I am putting it out there for scrutiny and improvement. I encourage critiscism (hopefully constructive in nature), so have at it, you will not hurt my feelings. I understand there are some flaws in the plan (which I hope someone has a better solution to than what I can conjure).

Keith


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

I like the Idea. It has sound reasoning. The only problem that I can see is the voluntary participation aspect. I do believe a fair percentage of sportsmen would pay the fee for habitat, however, it would not be sustainable unless it was mandated by a licensing structure IMO. I would buy the license plates and pay the fee in a heartbeat.

How many others here resident and nonresident alike, would be willing to join in on a voluntary basis??

Maybe you should set up a poll on this thread.

Bob


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Not trying to be negative here, can't see many farmers interested in this. I would not like a bunch of weeds out in the middle of a field I cant get to. These barriers work fine along rivers and creeks, I know of some farmer who have them around pot holes and despise them.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The success of participation would depend on how USDA treats crop insurance and prevented planting in the next farm bill. If those aspects are severly curtailed the signup would go better as there would little use of those acres. Cash rent would drop on that type of ground also giving a higher incentive for conservation.

g/o, I did the CRP routine on a number of potholes and didn't mind it. Would have had to farm around them anyway, now I get a payment and some extra habitat that would have been sprayed out or plowed down. If memory serves one of the ideas kicked around for CRP sign up was that the farmer would have gotten extra points for public access but Farm Burea fought that tooth and nail.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Dick, I am not surprised you would do this because your that kind of person. We have to keep in mind though the vast majority of the farmers don't feel as you do towards conservation. I agree giving extra points for public hunting would be a great deal.


----------



## englishpointer (May 16, 2005)

IMHO i think there should be a Liscense plate available NOW. so we can start a Slush fund for this sort of thing and More PLOTS!!!


----------



## tsodak (Sep 7, 2002)

Just a thought, but something not coming up on a lot of radar screens right now is the new CSP program. Folks, farmers have to be doing a pretty good job of conservation out there to make it in, but if they do. The rewards are real. I know there are a couple of hundred farmers in the state who are sitting at the table to day saying " Jeez just for doing the right thing anyway????" This does nto replace CRP, but it is going to make those folks like Dick much more competetive in the Ag world, and I think you may see some amount of change in attitide towards conservation. Not as much as a real reform of Crop Insurance would do, but it will have some impact.

Vacationing in the Hills this weekend. Got chased from Rushmore by a storm last night. Felt just like home.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

g/o



> the vast majority of the farmers don't feel as you do towards conservation.


What would it take in your opinion to get the majority to start thinking about conservation? This summer driving the countryside i could not help but notice the flooded areas in many fields in and out of the valley. The farmers went to the cost to plant and maintain it and eventually watched many small transition wetland areas wither away and rot underwater. Is it planted every year with the chance that they may be able to harvest these areas once every ?? years? would it be more efficient to not gamble the money by planting and take a relatively sure thing?

You and I agree that until we get the price support up to par for the landowners to make it worth their while to idle these areas the gamble will continue as fruitless as it may seem to be.

That is one of the reasons that I feel sportsmen should step up to the plate and do what needs to be done and not leave the Federal Govt as sole "whippin boy". Lots of ideas have been tossed about that could be used to better this situation. The sooner we get something going the better, time passes quickly! Any Ideas?

I agree with Tom. Here is a link that describes the CSP program
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/

Bob


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I like all those ideas. Other than getting the landowners support, my main concern would be where to raise the finances. If it were voluntary, a lot of people watching this website would probably gladly throw more money in the habitat pot. It will take money to do this. But after watching hunting and fishing websites for the past few years and watching what happens at the legislature every time an increase in hunting fees is suggested, I'm getting the impression that too many hunters are cheapskates who want vast quantities of unposted land, and nothing but the best hunting land at that, supplied for them free of charge whenever and wherever they care to hunt, but are pretty darned unwilling to ante up and give money to have this happen! They happily buy new guns, pickups, boats, bows and gadgets but when the idea of chipping in to ensure habitat many yell and scream and holler that they "can't possibly afford it!" I hate to say it but a lot of hunters out there have a real, ??what do they call it??, a real "sense of entitlement!" 
I'd better put on my hard hat and duck, but in my lowly opinion, that's how I'm beginning to see it. There was an article in the newspapers a couple months ago about the 20 - 35 year old group (?generation something or other?) that really supported what I'm seeing more and more each fall. 
But all of your suggestions are great! Without habitat we may as well hang it up. But unless it is paid through compulsory "user fees" by hunting and fishing licences it won't work.


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

HFHH

To a degree that is a pretty accurate assessment. The north Dakota Legislative Body is going to have to take notice at some point in time and address the situation with a little more than just window dressing. Last session the license cost for waterfowl hunting went up but that has been call "Lipstick on a pig" by a very involved sportsman, and he is exactly right.

The troubling part of the whole scenario is that as g/o likes to say the small towns like the NR money and it helps them survive. They have not stepped up to the plate with the new law that is more public hunting land with a NDGF cost match. Response has been zero, zilch, nada!!! That may tell you how the voluntary aspect of this is going to play out.

If a program is developed IMHO it needs to be an added fee associated with the license fee or a tax paid for only by sportsmen and outdoor recreation participants.

Bob


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

I agree, Bob. Everybody wants a free luch, but it will ultimately cost us all the price of a good dinner. 
Since 1937 sportsmen have paid millions for wildlife preservation and conservation, (Pittman Roberson Act) but had that added tax been made a voluntary thing, it never would have gotten off the ground.
We should all band together next session and demand higher license fees and include these lines from the original Pittman Roberson Act.

"...And which shall include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees paid by hunters for any other purpose than the administration of said State fish and game department..."

So extra money raised is not channeled off to general revenue and/or other vote buying pork barrel programs!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

HFHH

Agreed the funds need to be dedicated and I would also like to see no carryover, if there is funds available they should be used prior to the next hunting season.

NDSU Ag/Econ did that study on hunting spending for 2002. Even back then the total was One Billion Dollars of total economic impact by resident and nonresident sportsmen. a 1/4 cent sales tax on the lions share of those sales would raise a bunch of money for habitat (It is 0ne Penny for every 4 dollars you spend). I don't mind paying taxes if I can see some good come of it. I don't think you will find many in Fargo or that shop in Fargo, that would say that the tax that is in place for the Fargo Dome has been an undue burden to them. I was glad to pay it because the Dome is a real asset to the greater Fargo area. Habitat funded at this level could have a major economic impact. I do feel that economic impact and economic development are two totally different but often confused schools of thought, you can have economic impact with or without economic development.

The only other stipulation I would like to see attached to this proposal would be to add a sunset clause to evaluate the success or failure of the program. I don't think may will argue that the Pittman Roberson Act has been a failure.

Later
Bob


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

This morning USDA, let by Deputy Under Secretary Floyd Gaibler, FSA Administrator Jim Little and his two Deputies John Johnson and Mike Yost briefed a small group with myself, Farm Bureau, NACD, Cattlemen and Environmental Defense reps present on proposed plans for dealing with the 28 million acres of CRP under contracts expiring between now and 2008. The formal announcement of this will be made at the White House Conference on Conservation to be held in St. Louis at the end of August, and while they didn't tell us to embargo the news, you may want to treat it as somewhat tentative until the announcement.

Acreage with an EBI score in the 80th percentile or higher will be offered automatic long term re-enrollment. Acreage scoring between the 60th and 80th percentile will be offered a 5 year contract extension, 40th to 60th a 4 year extension, 20th to 40th 3 years, and the bottom 20th 2 years.

The land offered automatic re-enrollment and acreage bid in the next general sign-up will have rental rates revised to more accurately reflect local land rental market conditions. The acreage offered simple extensions will continue at the existing contract rental rate. The net effect of this will be to shift acreage from the PNW and the high plains to the Midwest.

The 25% county cap is going to be more strictly enforced, but individual counties at their discretion may elect to build in a 3% reserve, as John Johnson described it, to allow land to go into CRP under continuous sign-up or CREP. Presumably this will be done through the State Technical Advisory Committee's. So if a county elected to utilize the full 3% reserve, the county cap would be 22%.

A few anomalies may surface. Land with the highest EBI and offered automatic re-enrollment may get a reduced rental rate, while lower EBI land given a simple extension could remain at a higher, pre-revision rental rate. Environmental Defense was somewhat concerned that prarie potholes in the Dakota's may fall out of the mix because of relatively lower EBI scores so wants the percentile ranking system include room for "special consideration" lands. And this announcement will likely bring a negative reaction from the Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever crowd.

Gaibler estimated that approximately 6 million acres out of the 28 million expiring would either go back into production or go into some other non-conservation use. The question of base acre restoration to land that doesn't go back into CRP will have to be decided by Congress. And since we know that the CRP cap may be lowered as part of the budget reducing reconciliation process, the question may be addressed before the next Farm Bill.

USDA has until Sept. 30, 2007 to take action on the automatic re-enrollments or contract extensions, but John Johnson said notices could begin going out next spring.

While this may cause heartburn for some of our members, it is basically in line with what NAWG has requested and essentially what Sherman outlined in his recent Congressional testimony (in fact it is specifically what he outlined in his testimony, excepting the $7.85 bu wheat).

You all may have lots of questions and many details remain to be worked out as the process moves ahead. And the prospects for Congressional intervention are always a possibility (and almost a certainty regarding reconciliation).

Thank you for your continued interest, cooperation and support.

Mark Gaede 
Director of Government Affairs, Environmental Policy 
National Association of Wheat Growers 
415 Second St. N.E., Suite 300 
Washington, D.C. 20002

Interesting Indeed!!!!

Bob


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

Any chance of giving prairie pothole country a higher EBI score, other than "Special Consideration?"
Also any chance of allowing a higher payment if public access is allowed?

Thanks Bob


----------

