CRP? Welfare Ranching part 2

[Point Creep]

So what do you think? Is this another Welfare Ranching Program? Paying farmers and ranchers to not farm and ranch, just let there land sit... and collect a government paycheck.

Comments are welcome from the hard-core enviromentalists...

 

[JoseCuervo]

Hey Greenhorn... Go answer my questions on the Yuppie Starter Castles...

I do have a buddy who has a sweeeeeeeet deal on these CRP type things. He has to idle the land for 5 years, defined as not harvesting a crop, so he has planted Nursery Stock landscaping trees, that will get him a crop in 6 years. And the Gov't will pay him for this. Then, as it is a Habitat improvement, the State will pay him, and as he is putting trees in the ground, the Soil Conservation District will pay him. In 6 years he goes back to growing what ever crop he wants.

In the end, he is getting paid 3 times to grow trees...

Talk about living well off the system....

As to the rest of your CRP, it depends on intent. Some land is paid to be idle, to reduce supply of a commodity on the market. I think that is un-natural intervention in the free market. Definitely a no-no.

I think you guys have a CRP-type program where the intent is to actually provide habitat for Wild animals, so you can shoot them...

Seems funny, but I guess it is a good deal for those who get to kill the chit that lives there...

 

[Point Creep]

EG..

A 2-minute google search would have at least given you a definition of the program.
Go study up, then return and tell us how the folks collecting the paychecks are welfare ranchers (or farmers).

 

[Washington Hunter]

It's good for wildlife and therefore good for hunting, so what is wrong with that? I'd rather the government spend money on wildlife habitat than giving money away to other countries to help support their out-of-control human population. Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever are big supporters of CRP. Without it upland bird and waterfowl populations would be significantly lower and hunting opportunites obviously would be also. The CRP program may not be perfect, but does anybody have a better way of protecting wildlife habitat? Until somebody comes up with something better, I will support CRP. The only way I can think of that would be better would be the outright purchase of these lands, instead of what amounts to paying "rent."

 

[Point Creep]

And where's Ithaca? Certainly he must have an opinion on this subject. After all the "public land is the future of hunting and fishing." So why are we throwing cash at these private properties to not work??

 

[JoseCuervo]

Greenhorn,

Is CRP, in your opinion, designed to move dollars to farmers or is it designed to provide habitat for crittters, primarily? And why did Bush almost let it lapse?

We hear all the time from the pro- Welfare Ranchers that the ranchers are the best stewards of the land, the ones who know how to manage the land for Cows and Game, why wouldn't these CRP enrollees be managing for the game, without the payments?

I don't think CRP is equivalent to Welfare Ranching as it takes place on Private Property vs. Public Lands. So, to more clearly answer your first question, No, it is not equivalent to Welfare Ranching.

Is it a good program? That is a different question, and depends on if you hunt CRP lands, like transfer payments from the Federal Government, and you believe it is administered correctly.

I assume all those raghorn Bulls you kill are on Public Lands, but do they Winter down on Private Lands or CRP plots? And the Mulies?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2004 06:31: Message edited by: ElkGunner ]</font>

 

[Ithaca 37]

The way I see it, Welfare ranching causes wildlife habitat to be degraded, water quality to be degraded and public land to be degraded. We pay taxes for that to be done.

CRP does just the opposite, except on private land. I'm kinda a one issue guy. If it's good for hunting and fishing I'm for it. I hate paying taxes to support welfare ranchers who are destroying wildlife habitat. That's bad for hunting and fishing and, thus, also bad for the future of hunting and fishing.

Use the "Ithaca" test whenever you look at any issue: Is this good for hunting and fishing?

Examples: Christmas. Good for hunting and fishing. Keeps people home and takes pressure off the resource.

Medical research. Bad for hunting and fishing. Reduces death rate. Adds to overpopulation.

Subsidized urban renewal. Good for hunting and fishing. Makes cities more attractive places for people to live in and visit. Would you rather have them out hunting and fishing?

Britney Spears marriage annulment. Hard to tell yet what effect that will have on hunting and fishing. Keep an open mind!

Get the idea?

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-08-2004 08:55: Message edited by: Ithaca 37 ]</font>

 

[1_pointer]

Personnally, I think CRP is a great thing. However, it does get abused by some claiming hardship so they can get the money for letting the grass grow and then get to graze it or use it for hay. That is the only problem I have with it. I just wish they'd increase the % of each county that can be in the program. Even though these are on private lands, they can be a source for animals into adjacent areas which = good!

 

[Washington Hunter]

That's good Ithaca, I like that. Another good one I’ve often thought of...pro sports...GREAT for hunting. Keeps a lot of guys sitting at home on weekends glued to their television sets, while I’m out hunting.

 

[Ten Bears]

Tell me again how CRP is not a welfare program.

 

[Washington Hunter]

TB, The deal is we are getting something for our money...better quality wildlife habitat and therefore more wildlife to hunt. See..our taxes are being spent on something that benefits us as hunters. So call it welfare if you want, who cares, it's good for wildlife and good for us. Besides that, it's good for the environment in general, I would imagaine especially water quality. Why else would Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever be such big supporters of CRP? I sure wouldn't be putting down just about the only government program that benefits hunters. Would you rather Bush send all that money to Africa to help starving children and people suffering from AID's?

 

[Ten Bears]

No, WH, I'd just like to say that now you see a welfare side of hunting, and you are good with it. But it is welfare for hunting none the less, and no less welfare then subsidized grazing on public lands, which also benefits some hunting.

 

[Washington Hunter]

But it benefits everybody, not just hunters. I'm just looking at it from a hunting point of view, but I would imagine most everybody benefits from having clean water. And good quality wildlife habitat doesn't just benefit species that are hunted, so overall it is a good thing, not just for us selfish hunters

 

[Ten Bears]

I would imagine that the people that were one welfare, and moved to the local area feel that everyone benefits from the being on welfare too.

After all, they are freeing up jobs for those that really want to work aren't they.

 

[BuzzH]

The point Ten Beers is missing is that CRP was not ever a program funded for the sake of wildlife or hunting.

It is a goverment program to compensate farmers for resting unproductive or marginal lands. This accomplishes a couple things, reduces the amount of grain produced (decreasing supply), and also stops things like saline seeps, soil erosion, etc.

A spin off is that it also creates better wildlife habitat, but that was never the intent of CRP.

The CRP is welfare for the farmer, period. Not that its a bad thing, but calling the CRP welfare to the hunter is complete BS. When was the last time you saw a hunter cash a CRP check? I guess I missed my hunters welfare CRP check in the mail.

As to the original question, CRP is a great thing for all involved for lots of reasons.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-14-2004 09:39: Message edited by: BuzzH ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

Good point Ten. I never thought of it that way. So without welfare I may not have a job, somebody who is now on welfare would have it. Good deal.

Tell you the truth, I don't think the CRP program is the perfect solution for creating/maintaining wildlife habitat. I don't even know if that is the main purpose of it, actually I'm pretty sure it's not. But if I understand it correctly, land that is enrolled in the CRP program is the "highly erodible" land, or whatever the term is for that. The whole point of it is to keep that soil from washing away every time it rains. Which is why I said CRP helps protect water quality. Honestly you would think farmers would be smart enough to take care of their land without the government having to pay them to do what they should be doing anyway. So anyway, the idea of paying farmers to do nothing, I really don't like, but what is the alternative? I think I said before, it would be nice if the government could just buy the land so it would be protected forever. But that's not gonna happen. The other option would be conservation easements. Either would be better than CRP, in my opinion. But then, I am not an expert on the subject either.

 

[Ten Bears]

I wasn't aware that DU and RMEF were such supporters of decreasing grain production.

I agree with most of what you said WH.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 01-14-2004 09:58: Message edited by: Ten Bears ]</font>

 

[Washington Hunter]

Well after I posted my message I see Buzz beat me to it. Thanks Buzz. I tried but yours make more sense!

 

[Washington Hunter]

TB, I don't believe I mentioned the RMEF. I said Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever. CRP has boosted pheasant populations way up, especially in states with huge tracts of CRP, like South Dakota. I think it has been good for whitetail deer and mule deer in many states also.

 

[Ten Bears]

We had some local RMEF guys pushing the issue (nothing to do with what was said here). With the cost of farming, do you really think much of that land would be farmed today if the farer wasn't getting paid?