MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

CRP could see large payment increase in bipartisan bill

sclancy27 said:
You'd have to clarify your question for me to give you the best answer.
Click to expand...
Were the agencies truly wasteful or was it a matter that support was given to producers that didn’t need any financial help, weren’t interested in conservation, or looked at it as a simple write off

There was supposed to a big planting/restoration project just south of me. Was going to involve taking lots of fields out of production and public access for a set portion of time. After the first year of planting took place, which was right along a highway and in an untillable place somehow the family broke the contract. Basically they just got some free wind break and some stream stabilization. I’m sure the trees will be cut by the highway department in the next 25 years due to some sort of hazard claim
 
TheTone said:
Were the agencies truly wasteful or was it a matter that support was given to producers that didn’t need any financial help, weren’t interested in conservation, or looked at it as a simple write off
Click to expand...
The push from state leadership and above was to spend money (as can be seen in a "dollars spent" metric for success). This produces an incentive within the agency to get contracts out the door, not get good contracts out the door.

As far as the types of "ag producers", most weren't really producers of anything. I quotation it because we were rapidly transitioning from actual farmer/ranchers to hobby farms or people who knew how to solicit money for pet projects from the USDA. The most egregious of these was the WRP, Wetland easement, program. Most actual farmers/ranchers managed they're ground very well, so well they either didn't need or didn't want to deal with the hassle of USDA funding. I know of several people who made hundreds of thousands of dollars from a program, CSP, that has almost no value. One in particular bragged that the effort required to fulfill her requirements for 250K of CSP over 4-5 years was 40 hr of work, or less, per year.

We had multiple projects across the state my last 2 years that would have definitely benefitted wildlife (fence removal in a pronghorn migration area, etc). Those projects died even tho they mutually benefitted wildlife and cattle producers to fund projects like pivots which have no definable benefit besides more cash in the producer's pocket coming from increased yield (as a side note, pivots rarely save water due to the increased ease of irrigation and the incentive to irrigate the entire season).

I could go on and on and on....
 
seeth07 said:
Me whenever CRP/Drain tile and helping farming/farmers comes up:
View attachment 380502

For my region, its basically the same as bringing up Mule deer management in Montana
Click to expand...
As a kid who grew up in south central MN, I completely agree and understand.
I can quite literally say that when I was first able to drive as a kid, long before OnX or any digital mapping software, I would drive section lines and mark in a plat book anywhere that had any amount of grass/habitat. If the farm was nearby, I'd go and ask to hunt. If they weren't home I'd call them and tell them I stopped by and ask for permission.
I don't know how many of those places were enrolled in CRP, but I know a bunch of them were, and I'm sure thankful they were there when I was of a kid.
 
Wild Bill said:
I am happy with private land getting conservation funding, and I also wish that the 245 million acres of public land received far more funding.

Also, not all is lost if I can't directly access the private land that's enrolled because all the other critters are free to leave via their wings and legs and I can hunt them somewhere else. CRP acres are incredibly important for waterfowl and tons of other birds so the funding is something that I care about.
Click to expand...
Not all is lost - i dont mean to make that claim.

I am simply stating its a very poor return for conservation/wildlife out of the taxpayers pocket. I'll freely admit thats a biased and even uninformed perspective - as ive got no experience in the south/east as far as waterfowl on crp.
 
sclancy27 said:
The most egregious of these was the WRP, Wetland easement, program. Most actual farmers/ranchers managed they're ground very well, so well they either didn't need or didn't want to deal with the hassle of USDA funding.
Click to expand...
Does "managed well" mean they drained it and plowed it?
 
SAJ-99 said:
Does "managed well" mean they drained it and plowed it?
Click to expand...
We don't really drain much stuff in MT, if any anymore.

Managed well means ranchers manage their grazing so that it doesn't degrade over time and figure out water systems to assist that. If you stepped foot on a well-managed grazing operation you would be shocked at the lack of weeds, total production and huge biodiversity of plants. Management becomes even more important in our current drought cycles. Grazing, at least in MT, is very biologically important to most, or all, species because they all evolved under a bison grazing regime.

Farming is tough. I know some folks that have gone towards no-till, less fertilizer, etc. but it's really tough due to the scale and the amount of debt they take on to operate every year. Factor in a lot of dry land operations and the randomness of precipitation and you get way more farmers just following the status quo.
 
seeth07 said:
The problem that I have with the farmers by me enrolling and receiving the CRP funds is they are getting the funds for land that is untillable. Marsh/swamps that without drain tile can't be tilled. So they got these portions enrolled in the program.

The WDNR could just be way more strict on installing drain tile (like straight up just outlaw it statewide would be great)
Click to expand...
There is a requirement that the acreage enrolled in CRP must have a certified cropping history. CRP is often used (not layered) with other programs to create wetlands, field windbreaks, etc. So what might look like untillable, at one time was farmed, but not may have restored wetlands.
 
MNElkNut said:
There is a requirement that the acreage enrolled in CRP must have a certified cropping history. CRP is often used (not layered) with other programs to create wetlands, field windbreaks, etc. So what might look like untillable, at one time was farmed, but not may have restored wetlands.
Click to expand...
Correct. Do you know how easy it is to create the cropping history? My property used to be an onion marsh - farmed land. It is eligible for CRP even though it would be impossible to turn it into tilled soy/corn field even with tile.
 
seeth07 said:
Correct. Do you know how easy it is to create the cropping history? My property used to be an onion marsh - farmed land. It is eligible for CRP even though it would be impossible to turn it into tilled soy/corn field even with tile.
Click to expand...
It is only eligible if it was farmed during the 5-year(?) period under the current enrollment. If it did not have a cropping history for that period, it is not eligible. Acres have to reported as farmed during the period they are being farmed.

Do abuses occur? Sure, I suppose, but you cannot just enroll a swamp into CRP.
 
sclancy27 said:
The funny part is a certain natural resource agency has the ability to push public access programs....


In 5-6 yrs working for that agency I never heard of one being implemented. Admittedly, that is prob dependent somewhat on the state leadership, but still.

You know what our "success metric" was in that agency......"dollars spent".....
Click to expand...
I know of a decent number of
 
Forkyfinder said:
How about changing regulations? Perhaps following the same ones every other industry does?

Its pretty comical seeing all the storm water quality controls that cost hundreds/thousands to maintain on a construction site - all for the field next to it to be bare and open with no stubble.
Click to expand...

This chaps my azz too. Build a Donut shop on a one acre site and you have to do all kinds of storm water and erosion control; silt fence the perimeter, line the ditches with matting and straw bales to slow erosion, etc., etc. Meanwhile a mile down the road a farmer tills up a 100 acre field right up to within feet of an open creek or ditch with no erosion control.

Farms also directly dump field tiles into ditches and streams filling them with silt. A commercial property would require a retention pond to slow the outflow and reduce materials getting into a waterway.
 
Steiny77 said:
This chaps my azz too. Build a Donut shop on a one acre site and you have to do all kinds of storm water and erosion control; silt fence the perimeter, line the ditches with matting and straw bales to slow erosion, etc., etc. Meanwhile a mile down the road a farmer tills up a 100 acre field right up to within feet of an open creek or ditch with no erosion control.

Farms also directly dump field tiles into ditches and streams filling them with silt. A commercial property would require a retention pond to slow the outflow and reduce materials getting into a waterway.
Click to expand...
Under the Clean Water Act, stormwater discharges require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In that permit normal farming practices and activities are exempt.

Depending on the size of the project, construction activity is typically tied to a General Construction Permit which requires a SWPPP for land disturbing activities that disturb one or more acres of land, or construction sites that are part of a larger plan of development, even if smaller than one acre (ex. developing a 1/2 acre lot that is part of a larger tract of land to be developed), or if your project is smaller than 1 acre but discharges into Waters of the US.

It is BS that farmers are exempt from the same rules and regulations as others.

Politics. Farm/ag lobby.

I deal with SWPPPs/erosion and sediment control/stormwater management on a day to day basis if anyone wants to PM and chat about that or has questions about it, I do know a little bit and could maybe help I guess.

I'm sure my inbox will be full soon.... 😆
 
Don't know how much this will change. When I talk with farmers, the max payment is never brought up as an issue.

They always say the main issue is limited total funds for CRP. Farmers would enroll in more acres but the program is limited in funds so they only allow X acres and those go fast
 
CRP was a Boone to wildlife populations in our area when it came out. Killed our little town but the deer and antelope exploded. Since most of that ground came out in the last decade we have seen numbers go to hell. I think it is a valuable program but yeah their is a lot of abuse.
 
El Jason said:
Well, I’ve personally killed a number of pheasants on properties made available to the public through this funding. I’m sure you already knew that.
Click to expand...
You are talking about the NRCS Access Program? What state are you in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GOHUNT - Filter and find hunts like never before

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
117,394
Messages
2,155,617
Members
38,206
Latest member
Butchmac

Share this page

Back
Top