CRP and posting requirements???

[BucksnDucks]

I dont know about you guys, but from the public land that I hunt, i dont see any litter or leftovers from anyones kill. Maybe a few spent shell casing, but if that bothers you maybe u need sum thicker skin!

[CJH]

You're a quality individual if you think its OK to litter on public land that's reserved for wildlife. Nice.

Exactly why people don't want you on their property!!

[kentuck_ike]

I own 50 acres of CRP by my house. It is posted, but I did let just about anyone who cared enough to ask permission hunt it, as long as I wasn't hunting that day. In 3 yrs I have had 2 deer shot & left lay(neck shots the deer didn't go far), My dog kennel has been shot, I also have people shining on it at all hours and I did get a lot of litter at the driveways. I was also talked to by my insurance agent who informed me that I was liable for any who gets hurt on my land. I love to hunt, I love native prairies, I loved helping with habit, but I am not sure I would do it over again.

If you want to see why hunters have a bad name with land owners, just buy some CRP and find out the quality of some of the so called sportsman really is. I am no tree hugger, and I have been a outdoor sportsman for almost 30 yrs and I wondered why hunters had a bad name. Now I know, only about 50% of all hunters have good sportsman ethics.

I would also challenge anyone who thinks CRP is profitable to: Buy the land, enroll it, sweat over it, watch deer for the entire year, and then let anyone how has a wild hair come hunt your land.

The argument that you can't afford it doesn't hold water. If you want it bad enough you'll give up things to get it. Why should I be forced to let anyone hunt my land? When you all have the same right to own CRP land as I do.

[croixflats]

That's your choice to sweat over the land if you want CRP. What you want us to pay you more to have your own hunting land?

This is part of the argument CRP is meant to help farmers and now it being abused for personal gain.

Now the push is on to bail out the NW farmers because fields are diseased converting infested areas into CRP. Also want to include elderly farmers who may want to retire essentially subsidising a guys retirement because he no longer can farm the land because of age, HMMMMM something wrong here.

I understand the arguement of not wanting people on your land but answer this give me a good reason why should tax payers pay you to have your own hunting land?

[Augusta]

Croix is absolutely correct. If you want CRP type land, go buy some land, plant your own grass, spray your own weeds, pay your own taxes. Stop expecting the working man to pay for your personal pleasures. This program was intended for farmers, not hunters who wanted us taxpayers to subsidize their own private hunting land. By the way, now many of you 50 and 100 acre CRP landowers are actually farmers? Try NONE! Its because you guys who have abused the program, it is going away for the real farmers and the wildlife.

[BobT]

You can't enroll land into CRP unless it was ag land to begin with. Not all land qualifies. You can't just buy land and enroll it. As I stated earlier, good luck.

Here are the land eligibility rules.

Quote:

Title 7: Agriculture

PART 1410—CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM

Browse Previous | Browse Next

§ 1410.6 Eligible land.

(a) In order to be eligible to be placed in the CRP, land must be one of the following:

(1) Cropland that is subject to a conservation plan and has been annually planted or considered planted, as defined in §1410.2, to an agricultural commodity in 4 of the 6 crop years from 1996 through 2001, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, provided further that field margins that are incidental to the planting of crops may also be considered qualifying cropland to the extent determined appropriate by the Deputy Administrator; and is physically and legally capable of being planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity, as determined by the Deputy Administrator; or

(2) Marginal pasture land, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, that:

(i) Is enrolled in the crop year or has been enrolled during any of the 2 years preceding the crop year in the WBP; and

(A) The WBP contract of the owner or operator of the cropland expired or will expire in calendar year 2000, 2001, or 2002; and

( The acreage is not classified as naturally occurring type 3 through 7 wetlands, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, regardless of whether the acreage is or is not protected by a Federal agency easement or mortgage restriction (types 3 through 7 wetlands that are normally artificially flooded shall not be precluded from eligibility), and;

© Enrollment in CRP would enhance the environmental benefits of the site, as determined by Deputy Administrator; or

(ii) Is determined to be suitable for use as a riparian buffer or is made eligible in a CREP for similar water quality purposes as determined by the Deputy Administrator. A field or portion of a field of marginal pasture land may be considered to be suitable for use as a riparian buffer only if, as determined CCC, it:

(A) Is located adjacent to permanent stream corridors excluding corridors that are considered gullies or sod waterways; and

( Is capable, when permanent grass, forbs, shrubs, or trees, are grown, or when planted with appropriate vegetation for the area, including vegetation suitable for wetland restoration or wildlife habitat, as determined appropriate by the Deputy Administrator, of substantially reducing sediment and/or nutrient runoff that otherwise would be delivered to the adjacent stream or waterbody or for water quality purposes; or

(3) Must be acreage enrolled in the CRP during the final year of the CRP contract provided the scheduled expiration date of the current CRP contract is before the effective date the new CRP contract, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

( Land qualifying under paragraphs (a)(1) or (a) (2) of this section must also meet one of the following criteria, to be eligible for a contract:

(1) Be a field or portion of a field determined to be suitable for use, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, as a permanent wildlife habitat, filter strip, riparian buffer, contour grass strip, grass waterway, field windbreak, shelterbelt, living snowfence, other uses as determined by the Deputy Administrator, land devoted to vegetation on salinity producing areas, including any applicable recharge area, or any area determined eligible for CRP based on wetland or wellhead protection area criteria. A field or portion of a field may be considered to be suitable for use as a filter strip or riparian buffer only if it, as determined by CCC:

(i) Is located adjacent to a stream, other waterbody of a permanent nature (such as a lake, pond, or sinkhole), or wetland; excluding such areas as gullies or sod waterways; and

(ii) Is capable, when permanent grass, forbs, shrubs or trees are grown, of substantially reducing sediment or nutrient runoff that otherwise would be delivered to the adjacent stream or waterbody;

(2) Be a field that has evidence of scour erosion caused by out-of-bank flows of water, as determined by CCC:

(i) In addition, such land must:

(A) Be expected to flood a minimum of once every 10 years; and

( Have evidence of scour erosion as a result of such flooding.

(ii) To the extent practicable, be the actual affected cropland areas of a field; however, the entire cropland area of an eligible field may be enrolled if:

(A) The size of the field is 9 acres or less; or

( More than one third of the cropland in the field is land that lies between the water source and the inland limit of the scour erosion.

(iii) Or, if the full field is not eligible for enrollment under this paragraph, be the cropland between the waterbody and inland limit of the scour erosion together with, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, additional areas that would otherwise be unmanageable and would be isolated by the eligible areas.

(iv) Be planted to an appropriate tree species according to the FOTG, unless tree planting is determined to be inappropriate by NRCS, in consultation with the Forest Service, in which case the eligible cropland shall be devoted to another acceptable permanent vegetative cover in accordance with the FOTG;

(3) Be cropland that would facilitate a net savings in groundwater or surface water of the agricultural operation of the producer as determined by CCC;

(4) Be cropland in a portion of a field not enrolled in the CRP, if more than 50 percent of the remainder of the field is enrolled as a buffer practice, if the portion of the field not enrolled in the CRP will be enrolled as part of the buffer practice, and if as determined by CCC:

(i) The remainder of the field is infeasible to farm; and

(ii) The remainder of the field is enrolled at an annual payment rate not to exceed the maximum annual calculated soil rental rate;

(5) Be contributing to the degradation of water quality or posing an on-site or off-site environmental threat to water quality if such land remains in production;

(6) Be devoted to certain covers, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, that are established and maintained according to the FOTG, provided such acreage is not required to be maintained as such under any life-span obligations, as determined by the Deputy Administrator;

(7) Be non-irrigated or irrigated cropland that produces or serves as the recharge area, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, for saline seeps, or acreage that is functionally related to such saline seeps, or where a rising water table contributes to increased levels of salinity at or near the ground surface;

(8) Have an EI of greater than or equal to 8 calculated by using the weighted average of the EI's of soil map units within the field;

(9) Be within a public wellhead protection area;

(10) Be within a designated conservation priority area;

(11) Be designated as a cropped wetland and appropriate associated acreage, as determined by the Deputy Administrator;

(12) Be cropland that, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, is associated with noncropped wetlands and would provide significant environmental benefits; or

(13) Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section, be cropland devoted to a perennial crop, as determined by CCC; such cropland will only be eligible for continuous signup practices authorized by §1410.30 and CREP practices authorized by §1410.50(.

© Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and ( of this section, land shall be ineligible for enrollment if, as determined by the Deputy Administrator, land is:

(1) Federally-owned land unless the applicant has a lease for the contract period;

(2) Land on which the use of the land is restricted through deed or other restriction prior to enrollment in CRP prohibiting the production of agricultural commodities during any part of the contract term except for eligible land under paragraph (a)(2) and (3) of this section, as determined by CCC; or

(3) Land already enrolled in the CRP unless authorized by §1410.6(a)(3), as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

[scsavre]

My 100 acres i spoke of are not even for hunting. I dont hunt it at all. I would give anyone permission who actually asked and didnt just sneak out there. If i didnt have trespassing issues i would hunt it.

There are good and bad public hunting lands out there. I just think that if the private CRP lands were to become public it could have negative affects on the wildlife and the land.

As others have said, problems with litter, shells left on land and the parking area, and remains of cleaned game. Personally i found about 15 dead geese on my land this year. Apparently they were just target practice for some real sportsman.

Again this land wasnt set aside for hunting, it does alot for erosion issues and habitat.

I am in the same situation many times where my mouth is watering to get out on someones CRP land, but i get turned down for permission.

If your going to complain about where your tax money is going this should be the least of your worries. Its unreal, the worthless spending. This one actually does some good.

[First Ice-Mike]

For all you people that think a government subsidy entitles you to trespass on private property I hope none of you used tax credits or government funds to help buy your home. If you did I'll be over for Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow so I can garner some benifit for the money I have invested in your house. Oh yeah - if you used the cash for clunkers program to buy a car could you please pick me up for that Thanksgiving dinner - I had to sell my vehicle to buy some more propane to dry my 180 bushel corn crop that I finally finished at 1:00 this morning and everyone seems to think is so easy raise. It amazed me how entitled some people are - and how clueless!!!!!

FI

[kentuck_ike]

It is my choice to sweat over the land, just like it is my choice to limit who hunts on it. Even if it is for personal gain, the land is still out of production which benifits the farmer. That is the goal of CRP.

In our area CRP payments are about half what the going rate is for rent, so the elderly looking to support his retirement would not be smart to put his land in CRP. Most farmers don't invest in IRAs for retirement, they invest in their land. So then since IRAs are tax shelter they cost every tax payer something, so if CRP owners need to let others hunt because it is tax payer support, we should be able to use your IRA since most are tax shelters?

They don't pay me to hunt my own land, they pay me to not put it production, I just found a use for it that would benefit me & my family. The CRP program doesn't pay for a lot of the improvements that draw in wild life, that is the land owners responiblty.

Why does it matter if I am a full time farmer or not? The program is designed to remove land from production regardless of who owns it. It is no different than an investor buying land and renting out.

If you don't like the program contact your represenative, and ask them to reform it, but please don't knock me for my wanting to provide habit for wild life & use it.

If we don't have these programs every fence line, swamp, and grass lands would be crop land. Do you Know what no habit does to wild life.

Even if we don't let people hunt our CRP it still benifits every hunter. MORE HABIT=More huntable Game

[jparrucci]

This thread is a perfect example of what is wrong with this country and the people in it these days. I am relatively young (30) and see and read of all the horrible game and fish violations on here and the DNR website, and have witnessed a few myself. I think we as "sportsmen" have to start looking in the mirror and looking at those around us. I think the percentage of hunters and fishermen breaking the rules is very, very high. The tresspassing and deer shining/poaching is getting to be prolific. Along with that is the whole baiting scenario, which as bad as it is, is not the same as infringing on others. These things need to stop and stop now. Fines/jail time need to increase dramatically.

So, where does that bring us with the CRP? I for one would not likely let anyone hunt it if I owned it and had some of the examples sited on this page, thats for sure. I have been denied access to hunt at almost ever single farm I have ever stopped at. I would put my success at about 3 or 4 in 80 to 90 attempts. I have no harsh feelings for those farmers (except the ones who were very very rude, which was almost half of them). But lets call CRP was it is, a private reserve. Not that there is anything wrong with that. If we deem this land acceptable to take out of crop rotation and PURCHASE, then so be it. I understand where the farmers come from and saying that they aren't exactly making a ton of money off that land. So here is what we do. We either buy it as WPA/WMA land, or let the farmer do with it what he pleases. Pheasants are not a migratory bird. They could nest 100 of them on that land, and if I can't hunt it, it has no value to myself, or the rest of the taxpayers. If it is wetlands and there is waterfowl, we may have something, but one 40 acre plot 3 miles from the nearest public land, is not doing anything for the taxpayers.

[lawdog]

Good grief there is a lot of ignorance in this thread. CRP is not just about providing a place to hunt. Its is about habitat and also about protecting marginal land from erosion etc. And First Ice-Mike is right too, any of you on here making the tax payer access complaint print your addresses so I can come use your shower, toilet, couch and fridge if you've ever written your mortgage payment off on your taxes you abuser of the public purse!!!!

If you want public access land, CRP is not the option as it would take WAY more money to justify the lose of access control. There is no way CRP is a real profit center either as tweedlap so accurately points out in his post on their 20 acre CRP patch. Our 56 acre patch of CRP is very similar except instaed of the $145 rent payments we give up a crop rent that is closer to $175 around here and we still only get $85 on the CRP. What a boondoggle huh?!?!?!? Oh and the 24 that is former pasture that's not in any program, I wonder if you think you should access that too since its on the same parcel as our huge profit center??? Absurd!

[Rooster Chaser]

Our success rooster hunting, public or private is tied to the availability of habitat. Look at the bird harvest numbers during the Soil Bank years, and when CRP was peaking. It will be interesting to see what the next few years bring, but I know some of my best spots are now tilled, because CRP is not competitive.

Instead of ripping on the farmers, get to know them. Would you let people hang out at your place with guns if you did not know them. I am allowed to hunt my best spots because these guys know me, and know that I appreciate their permission. Drop off a rooster or two, or maybe a stick of summer sausage.

CRP benefits wildlife, the land, and the watersheds. It has huge benefits as a gov't program, and I hope we find a way to maintain.

BTW, I was able to hunt a CRP filter strip today with two friends, 6 roosters in an hour and a half. Was told it was a one time deal, I appreciated the chance, and had a blast.

[croixflats]

To show I'm not ripping on the farmer and my point is not understood, no fault to the reader, I'll post an intresting read. I garantte it is a good read. Its rather long

CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM

In the previous section on conservation tillage systems, I mentioned that the conservation title in the1985 Farm Bill included several approaches for decreasing soil erosion, and that Farm Bills since then have continued a focus on environmental objectives, such as erosion reduction . One important component was the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), discussed below. (See 2002 Farm Bill and 2008 Farm Bill for more information on conservation provisions of these pieces of legislation.)

The CRP grew, in part, out of the realization that 11% of all crop land accounts for 53% of soil losses on non irigated agricultural lands in the US; that is, a relatively small percentage of the land is highly erodible. The central idea of the CRP was to pull this highly erodible land out of production for 10 yrs. Decreasing erosion would also decrease nonpoint water pollution

The original target was that 18 million ha (about 44 million acres) of highly erodible crop land should be planted in trees and grass, which is equivalent to 11% of US cropland. There was originally a five yr time frame for enrolling, with first enrollements coming after passage of the 1985 Farm Bill. The CRP was, however, reauthorized in the 1990 Farm Bill (until 1995) and in the 1996 Farm Bill as well, so enrollments (and renewals) continued past the original five yr time frame. The 2002 Farm Bill extended the program again, increasing acreage to a bit over 39 million acres.

In the CRP, farmers sign 10 yr contracts with USDA, agreeing to take the land out of production for 10 yrs. Farmers are paid for the lost production on the retired land. Essentially they are paid a rental fee of around $50/acre each yr for 10 yr. (This is an average over the US, but is highly variable across the country depending largely on the potential productivity of the land; in Montana the rental rate is much lower than in Iowa, for example.)

An important feature of the CRP is that the land is not simply idled from crop production, but is replanted in "permanent vegetative cover;" either grassland or trees. The government shares (50/50) with the farmer the cost of converting the lands to this "permanent vegetative cover." (The 2002 Farm Bill allows farmers to harvest some biomass for energy generation from CRP lands, but in these cases, the rental rates paid by the government are lower.)

The initial target was to enroll 40-45 mill acres (16-18 mill ha), and by mid-1990, 34 mill acres were enrolled. By 1993, 37 mill acres (15 mill ha) were enrolled. This acreage involved 377,000 CRP contracts, covering 8% of US farmland (nearly 60% of it in the 10 great plains states)!

If the CRP is such a good deal for farmers with highly erodible land, why haven't all of them enrolled in the CRP? Five main reasons are cited for farmers not enrolling erodible lands in the CRP:

Some farmers that don't believe that erosion is hurting them

Some farmers don't participate in federal programs anyway (45-50% do not) and thus thoughts of losing subsidies because of noncompliance with conservation compliance provisions are immaterial to them

Some farmers resent government intervention into their farming operation

Some farmers are not well informed about the financial benefits associated with enrolling lands in the CRP

Funding for the program is limited, thus not everyone that applies can receive funding for implementing this important conservation program.

Has the CRP been effective at decreasing soil losses?

It has slashed erosion losses by 700-800 million tons per yr (an average of 19 tons per acre), representing a decrease of about 93% on enrolled lands.

This is over 1/3 of the excessive US soil losses from before the program began (excessive loss is the amount that erodes beyond new soil formation), and it represents a 22% reduction in total US cropland erosion compared with conditions pre-CRP!

The largest percentage of CRP lands are planted in forage and native grasses, the second largest percentage has been planted in trees (particularly in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal states), while the third largest acreage is converted to "wildlife plantings," which provide food or habitat for various wildlife species.

How much does the CRP cost the US government?

The CRP sounds expensive, eh? The US government spends nearly $2 billion per yr on CRP rental payments and costs of conversion of lands to "permanent vegetation." It was estimated originally that the government would have a total investment of about $20 bill nationwide over the first 10-year life of the program; more than that was spent since the program continued and enrolled acreages increased.

This is a superficial look at costs however, in that these "costs" don't take into account the benefits that have been reaped by the program. Analyses suggest that summing the total environmental and soil productivity benefits (decreased erosion, protection of future soils, decreases in off-site agricultural effects such as water pollution and sedimentation, enhancing fish and wildlife habitat, supporting farmers income, and decreasing surplus commodity production) the net benefits are over $10 bill over 10 yrs even after accounting for the $20 bill outlay. (See Science 15 June 2007 for a more conservative estimate of net benefits -- but net benefits are estimated, none the less.)

An additional benefit associated with the CRP is the enhanced wildlife habitat that many of the CRP lands provide. The habitat value of the CRP lands has been well documented for waterfowl in terms of nest success on CRP lands in the prairie pothole region of North Central US (Dakotas, S. MN and IA). According to the Great Plains chaper of "Ducks Unlimited," populations of wildfowl in that area are the highest ever recorded. Habitat value of the lands has also been documented for prairie birds that were in decline 1966-1990 (e.g., lark bunting, grasshopper sparrow). Surveys show great nest success and population increases on CRP lands, presumably because they have allowed increases in suitable habitat area.

Also associated with CRP lands are beneficial changes in regional carbon flux -- that is, decreased fluxes of CO2 into the atmosphere from these lands and increased carbon storage by them. These changes in carbon flux are associated with reforestation of some CRP lands and with decreased carbon emissions from nontilled soils along with increased carbon storage in these soils (as described in the previous section on conservation tillage). (We'll talk more about changes in carbon flux when we discuss global climate change later.)

In addition, it is important to remember that, in many cases, if the CRP wasn't in place, the government would be making commodity payments (subsidies) on crops produced on many of these lands The net program benefits just from avoiding those costs are estimated to be about $3-11 bill over 10 yrs.

The CRP may cost consumers a bit over the short term because agricultural production decreases so consumer prices increase. However, over the long term, there will be much greater payoff than cost because of the benefits listed above. There is also added revenue from hunting, fishing, and other recreational values associated with the lands.

Recent concerns about the CRP

I guess that nothing is perfect, and that seems to apply to the CRP as well. In recent years two major concerns about the programs' environmental effects have surfaced:

1. Many farmers enrolled in the CRP are planting nonnative species, rather than using native species to accomplish the "permanent vegetation" that they are obligated to establish. For example, rather than seeding native grasses, many farmers seed crested wheatgrass, a non-native species. What's wrong with that? Well, it isn't native (native grassland species are in trouble with loss of area and competition from nonnatives already), tends to be invasive of nearby areas, is difficult to eradicate, has marginal wildlife value, and doesn't do as much to improve soil as do many native grasses (because it has smaller root systems, so doesn't contribute as much organic matter to the soil). The 1995 Farm Bill tried to minimize the planting of exotic species like this, by requiring that each application for CRP status (which is competitive to get) be scored according to an "environmental benefit index." This index takes aspects such as prevention of erosion, improvement of water quality, and use of native species into account, and should make it harder for enrolled farmers to plant non-native species. Skeptics claim, however, that many will go ahead and plant the non-natives anway (time will tell!).

(2) Perhaps more serious, farmers who are paid to idle land under the CRP often do so, but plow up virgin grassland to grow crops on instead, making them eligible not only for CRP payments but also for crop price supports for the land that they grow crops on instead of on the CRP lands! This "sod-busting" is not illegal under current CRP provisions. In S. Dakota, for example, 1.8 million acres of cropland were enrolled in the CRP between 1985 and 1995, however during that same time, cropland acreage in S. Dakota increased by 708,000 acres, much resulting from sod-busting.

Those concerned about these problems hope that the new version of the CRP will be amended to prohibit both sod-busting and planting of non-native species.

What happens to the land once the contracted 10 yrs are concluded?

The first CRP contracts, covering 2 mill acres, were set to expire in Oct. 1995, but President Clinton extended the agreements by one year to await the passage of the 1996 farm bill, which extended them (as did the 2002 Farm Bill). The concern was over what would happen to these lands, especially if commodity markets are favorble when the contracts expire.

Many feared that it would be like the soil bank program of the 1950 Agricultural Act -- over 80% of that land was ploughed during the 1970 export boom -- (the "great plow out"). High commodity prices could similarly affect CRP lands.

Some contracts were renewed and some were not. The decision for any particular farmer depends on economics and incentives. For example, since highly erodible land was taken out of production, farmers would have to meet rigorous conservation compliance standards to bring it back into production (if they wanted to receivegovernment farm supports), which could be quite expensive (e.g., terracing or changed crop rotation sequences). It was hoped initially that these costs would keep most farmers from bringing it back into production. However, about 26% of the enrolled land is not actually so erodible that it would have to abide by conservation compliance provisions, and those provisions have been weakened, as we saw earlier. About 74% of CRP lands would, however, be subject to conservation compliance, so even if farmers do return those lands to cropping, they will have to decrease erosion somewhat compared to previous levels. While this won't provide as much protection against erosion, nor, often, the other environmental benefits associated with CRP lands, it will at least moderate the damage.

[muc33]

If you want habitat ground for hunting and don't own your own land to enroll in CRP, or can't afford to buy land to put into habitat.... Use your money to get some more public ground, planted in tall grasses, with tree plants, shrubs, berries, and crop food plots. How, you ask??? Join PF or another organization that takes your money and purchases land that is either revitalized, or put into habitat and then posted for public hunting.

Lets keep this on topic about the posting issue, and not stray into whether CRP is just, or fair, or if you like it at all.

[scsavre]

First ice and lawdog, great responses, i love it.

Doesnt Ted Turner own half the state of wyoming in CRP? That will be fun to go to his house and make myself feel at home.

I hope people have gotten our points on why it is private and our land to make decisions ahout. So either save money and buy your own hunting land, become good friends with someone with some land or look in to PF, etc.

[First Ice-Mike]

Thank-you.

Happy Thanksgiving.

FI

[scsavre]

One last thing, if i am not mistaken CRP owners can opt to make their land huntable to the public. I think there was a $3 per acre bonus incentive. Supposedly there was suppose to be a list of where these lands were. Ive never seen a list. Info might be dated though, cant remember for sure.

[BobT]

Of course they can make "huntable." It's their land. CRP does not mean it can't be hunted. Get permission and you're good to go.

[croixflats]

Thankyou for deleting. My response, It was harsh and I apolligize Scsavre and anyone else that saw that. I have the upmost respect for farmers and should do what we can to help out.

[scsavre]

Im not worried about it. I am not a farmer, and as i said i get frustrated when they dont let me hunt their CRP land. But we just difer at the point of us having the right to hunt it. I wish i had some land around the twin cities, as my lab just turned 1 and hasnt been on a real bird yet. Hopefully i can get out of town and find some land. My land is by DL and ther isnt much up there.

Good luck to all.

[ReelTimes]

There is no question that the CRP program has enhanced pheasant numbers and benefited sportsman. I do not own CRP and personally don't expect to have access to that land just because of a crp payment. I think the real, unspoken issue and frustration for many is the lack of access to good quality, public hunting land for pheasant hunting in MN. There isn't enough land for the number of hunters in this state. Unless you can hunt midweek, weekend hunting is very challenging because the hunter demand exceeds the land supply. I think I have hunted just about every public WMA or WPA in SW MN at one time or another. The hunting pressure is unbelievable. I finally stopped hunting pheasant in this state and do all my pheasant hunting out of state. On a positive note, I spend my MN hunting hours Grouse hunting. There is a tremendous amount of public land available to hunt without all the hunting pressure, and the bird #s continue to be awesome. I do wish our MN DNR would do more to enhance access to additional hunting lands for pheasant, though.

[croixflats]

I tell ya, I had a knee jerk response to a post, It was not yours and it does not matter whose it was. I took a position and transitioning that to political and carried on with it. That wake engulfed a simple post, not proud of that.

-

I took that $3 dollar an acre thing you mentioned, I remember My bro mentioning/explaining ( Forgive that space in memory) a different system pertaining to the CPR and private land in Montana where he lives.

-

I came up with this though it does not pertain to Minnesota directly but I feel it has pertinence;

Sidebar 2: The Role of the Conservation Reserve Program in Controlling Rural Residential Development

Jerry Johnson

Bruce Maxwell

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), can play a role in slowing and even preventing sprawl on the rural countryside in regions where population is growing. Using a land use prediction model designed for a mixed agricultural/residential landscape in southwest Montana, we demonstrated that CRP is shown to preserve and protect the vital ecological functions sustained by the preservation of agricultural land as well as curtailing the supply of land for rural residential development. With CRP as part of the land management mosaic, the area was projected to have an average residential land use growth rate of almost half that of areas without CRP enrollment.

CRP is not without some negative impacts to agricultural communities including a decline in local agricultural employment and associated economic activity as well as changing consumer spending habits. Very simply, as less land is cultivated, less labor is needed for farming, less crop is stored in local granaries, and fewer implements are replaced or maintained. In many cases small businesses that directly supported agriculture fail and as they do so other “main street” businesses suffer. At the same time farmers were somewhat better off economically as their farm incomes stabilized due to guaranteed CRP payments.

We conducted a study of land use change in Three Forks, Montana. The town lies at the headwaters of the Missouri River in Gallatin County and is an ideal community for the investigation of rural change as it makes a transition from an economy based primarily on natural resources to one that is increasingly regionalized toward Bozeman and Helena. The geographically diverse landscape requires that most agricultural activity is itself highly disjointed – both how it is spatially located and in terms of production; that is, hay and grain production is mixed with beef cattle operations. However the diversity of the landscape, the large riparian zones, and agricultural mix creates an attractive location for those who like small rural towns with nearby employment opportunity. The local microclimate is dry and windy and is comprised of locations of highly erodable soils thereby enabling much of the local agricultural land to qualify for CRP enrollment.

Using a Geographical Information System (GIS) platform, we began the study of land use change with an inventory of land use in the area and then calculated a probability transition matrix (multiple layers of information through time and space) for land use analysis and forecasting purposes in a landscape dominated by private ownership.

We calculated our land use change forecasts in two ways – one with CRP in the land management mix and one without CRP.

The results of the map cells classified as residential following the two growth scenarios indicate that with CRP in the land use mix the extent of rural residential development in the study area decreased and resulted in two diverging trend lines that represent the number of cells that could be expected to have changed from no development to residential with and without CRP in the prediction equation (see figure below).

Data table for Figure 4 Year Without CRP With CRP

2000 98 84

2005 105 88

2015 121 95

2025 137 104

With CRP in the land management mix the number of cells in residential land use was observed and predicted to have grown 14% between 1984 to 1995 and 23% from 2000 to 2025. Without CRP in the mix, the area was projected to have a residential land use growth rate of 27% and 40% growth rates for the same periods.

The finding is important for several reasons. Aside from the obvious economic benefits of retaining agricultural employment and earnings in a rural economy, keeping agricultural lands intact can be a desirable amenity for community residents. The strategy preserves open space and prevents piecemeal residential development. Agricultural land in CRP can benefit the ecology, economy, and aesthetics of the community. However, tracts of agricultural land in the midst of rapid residential growth can bring negative consequences for local residents. While rural nonfarm residents may enjoy the open space provided by active farming operations, some farming activities may be considered bothersome. This includes negative public reaction to the application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides; smells from animal production activities; slow-moving farm vehicles on commuter roads; increased incidence of air pollution from harvesting and burning; and increased demand on local water supply for irrigation.

The ideal scenario might be a land management regime where the conservation and residential development effects of the program are left intact but the negative agricultural impacts are reduced. We propose that CRP could support a “mixed” land management whereby conservation of water and soil (as well as visual) qualities of farmland are preserved if farmers would manage the land to focus the conservation elements attributed to CRP into “ecological islands” or refuges within productive agricultural fields. In effect, this would optimize the landscape diversity of a rural community in which the farm spaces would be fragmented with ecologically functional patches of native species, protected riparian zones, and even recreational trails. Some rural housing may be interspersed on the edges of the large open spaces but the land would remain primarily in agricultural production. The ecological benefits of such a land use setting would be, in effect, concentrated to localized areas within the larger agricultural context. The management goal for CRP would become to continue ecological protection and for the landowner it would be to preserve agricultural production. The community would benefit through the preservation of open space.

[brittman]

CRP is ag land no doubt. Does not need to be posted to be off limits and permission will be required to hunt.

That said, CRP fills with snow rather quickly and the birds must move on. It is December 1 tomorrow ... come on ice (as in frozen wetlands and not ice storms), come on snow.

[JIGGIN']

Thanks for all reply's. A lot of good responses here. Page 8 of the regs. states this one very clearly.

Permission is the best way to go and it is the Law!

Cleared this one up for a buddy very well...

[BrdHunter01]

There are good and bad public hunting lands out there. I just think that if the private CRP lands were to become public it could have negative affects on the wildlife and the land.

Allowing people to hunt this "unposted" land in ND has really crushed the bird population..... There is barely a pheasant or any wildlife left in the area

[gr8icefishinmind]

Plain and simple.....if the land is not public, stay off it!! Tresspassers that get caught should have their licenses revoked. State and public land is marked so if there is not marking on the land edges then it is obviously private whether it is posted or not!! The " i didn't know" excuse is pretty stupid!!

[Dave S]

Originally Posted By: scsavre

There are good and bad public hunting lands out there. I just think that if the private CRP lands were to become public it could have negative affects on the wildlife and the land.

Allowing people to hunt this "unposted" land in ND has really crushed the bird population..... There is barely a pheasant or any wildlife left in the area

A person is better off not spending the money on a ND license. There's no birds left and it's all because of the lack of trespass laws.

[strait-meat]

I think since CRP is funded by the gov't (thru tax payers dollars/subsidy), it is my belief that it should be part of the condition when these farmers take this money to make these areas "open to hunting" and treat it like a "Walk-in-Land". The public is paying for these farmers not farm certain areas, the public should also enjoy the opportunity to hunt these areas as well.

[BobT]

I think since CRP is funded by the gov't (thru tax payers dollars/subsidy), it is my belief that it should be part of the condition when these farmers take this money to make these areas "open to hunting" and treat it like a "Walk-in-Land". The public is paying for these farmers not farm certain areas, the public should also enjoy the opportunity to hunt these areas as well.

I can see your point and I understand where you’re coming from but I also think that in order to do that, the public should also be willing to do one of the following.

1.

Pay for that privilege. Right now, the public is asking farmers to take a cut in pay and remove certain marginal income-producing property off their payroll in order to help reduce erosion. In the process hunters enjoy a side benefit of the program that the average citizen does not despite the fact that they too help pay for said program. Put yourself in the farmer’s shoes and ask yourself if you would be willing to take a pay cut in exchange to opening your property to the rest of society? Remember, this is not land that some guy buys with extra cash on hand like a few acres of hunting property. This is land that they rely on for their bread and butter.

OR

2.

Take full responsibility for the property while it is in the public care. The public should then be responsible for all labor, equipment, and purchase costs associated with the prep tillage, seeding, maintaining, and returning the property to the farmer as it was when it was acquired so he/she can put it back into production again.

We have to remember that the CRP program is a voluntary cooperative effort between the farmer and the USDA. These are farmers that care about their land and the environment. These farmers understand the negative impact their business practices can have on the environment and are willing to give up some of their income in order to help out. Think about where you work. How much does your employer do for the environment voluntarily at the expense of the business? Farmers that enroll their land are not in it for the money. If you think that then I’ll again ask you to take my challenge and prove me wrong. Buy some land, get it enrolled (what portion qualifies), go through the process, open it to the public as you want farmers to do, and see how well it goes. Let us know how it works out.

[fishingfool]

I dont normally respond, but I felt I had to in this situation (I also dont know how to copy quotes from above into my respones so if someone would help me out it would be appreciated)

Some made reference to ND and the poor pheasant hunting and excused it by stating that the trepass rules has "crushed" the bird population. I apologize but you coudl not be further from the truth.

First a little biology. Male pheasants are polygamous, meaning roosters will mate with several hens. Therefore, since we only harvest male pheasants they are virtually impossible to overharvest (you could take 90% of the males out every year and have no effect on next year's population). In addition there is evidence that suggests roosters could out compete hens for limited food (if that condition exists)during severe winters which could actually hurt the overall population. so harvesting as many roosters as possible annually is a good thing.

What actually has "crushed" the bird population in ND and other states is a combination of weather and habitat removal.

ND lost 420,000 acres of CRP in 2007 and is on deck to lose more. Additionally when commodity prices sykrocketed a while back many acres of habitat were turned over to grain (including but not limited to the above CRP acres).

At the same time ND experienced severe winters and wet cold springs (the two weather related things that limit pheasant reproductive success).

That combination is what "crushed" the pheasants not hunting CRP!

Whether you like CRP or not, think the public should be allowed to hunt it or not, the fact remains that pheasants need two things to survive and thrive: Habitat and conducive weather. CRP is the grassland base that historically supported recent record level pheasant populations. If that goes away so does the wildlife. And as someone earlier said CRP does benefit all of us in many ways even if you are not directly on the CRP acres. If we lose this battle additional CRP authority we are currently fighting, and the CRP disappears, so will the wildlife.