Elk Tag Future

[TLC]

doing good. she's down in florida for work right now. be there for another full week. thinking while she's gone, might try and sneak in a hawg hunt somewhere. especially since the bear trip got pushed back 2 weeks.

seems like the liberals are the same no matter what part of the country they live in.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

How much are deer tags in Tennessee?

Glad you're so over-charged and really go all out with your monitary support of wildlife.

Talk about free rides...wow.

I went ahead and wasted a couple minutes to look into how much you spend as a resident in TN to hunt, fish, and trap...just as I expected...its earth-shattering money. Definately so much that a person would feel total and complete entitlement to all the States PUBLIC wildlife and wildlife management.

What a joke.

"Annual Sportsman (Type 004) __________ $136.00
An all-inclusive license valid for hunting, trapping, and sport fishing without any state supplemental licenses or non-quota permits and allows holders to apply for quota permits at no additional fee. Sportsman licenses can be purchased from all license agents."

 

[TLC]

actually, have known Tom for a while, and he spends more on hunting and wildlife support than most people I know. hunts all across north america and africa every year or so.

$136? pretty steep. here in illinois, the hunting license is all of $15? never get just that, so not sure. the combo, hunting and fishing is $26.50. then you have your deer tags. $15 for gun, $26 for 2 archery tags. waterfowl stamps. trapping license etc. of course, individual states costs are irrelevant since the topic is national land. so guess each persons taxes determine what goes to that.

 

[BuzzH]

TLC,

If its national land that is the topic...then Toms comments are way, way, way off course. Hunters pay exactly ZERO toward public lands management via STATE hunting licenses. The only Federal hunting license I'm aware of is the Federal Migratory Waterfowl Stamp. Those funds are used for wetland management...usually not on National Forest or BLM lands.

Like I said, all users of public lands and ALL U.S. Citizens have an equal right to utilize, comment, and give direction toward how their PUBLIC land is managed.

Just because you hunt on Federal land, it doesnt give you any more right to comment on how that land is managed than some guy living in a concrete jungle in L.A. or NYC. In particular it gives you no more rights because you happen to buy STATE issued fishing and hunting licenses.

Its more than apparent you and a few others are very confused on this issue.

 

[TLC]

Buzz, actually, the CRP program also sends monies to the wildlife across the country. not sure how much of this they have out west, but here in illinois, and guessing the midwest, they do a LOT of it. before the ethanol BS started and farmers dropped their CRP program, there was actually land being brought back into the wildlifes favor thru our tax dollars. also, thought, but not sure about this, that I heard that part of the states license fees go to the feds for certain programs. wasn't really paying attention, but they were talking about doves and how they get monies from the licenses because they consider them a migratory bird? like I said, don't dove hunt any more, so wasn't really paying attention.

and by the way Buzz, just because you say and think we are way of base, doesn't make it so. no matter what you think, you are not always right.

 

[BuzzH]

The CRP is a subsidy paid to farmers to rest their land.

Its not a wildlife based program and no money from the CRP goes to wildlife agencies.

Are there positive spin-offs for wildlife? Absolutely.

"Conservation Reserve Program
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. The program provides assistance to farmers and ranchers in complying with Federal, State, and tribal environmental laws, and encourages environmental enhancement. The program is funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). CRP is administered by the Farm Service Agency, with NRCS providing technical land eligibility determinations, conservation planning and practice implementation."

Nothing there directly regarding wildlife.

 

[TLC]

again Buzz, you really need to think about that. CONSERVATION Reserve Program.

conservation - n., a conserving; preservation. the official care or management of natural resources. now, not sure about you, but personnally think that wildlife is a natural resource. but thats my opinion.

 

[BuzzH]

TLC,

Please provide proof of this, "the CRP program also sends monies to the wildlife across the country"

You're confused again.

 

[TLC]

Buzz, will type this slow for you. CRP is a federal program. the program is designed to take care of natural resources. put the definition up there for you. what part don't you understand? as I said, out west, guessing they don't have as much CRP as they do in the midwest.

not confused at all. just not as arrogant as you to think I'm ALWAYS right.

 

[TLC]

New Conservation Reserve Program
Julian R. Beckwith III, Extension Forest Resources, Wood Products
Kim D. Coder, Extension Forest Resources,Community Forestry
Coleman W. Dangerfield Jr., Extension Agricultural Economics
David J. Moorhead, Extension Forest Resources, Regeneration
David H. Newman, Forest Economist
Leon V. Pienaar, Forest Biometrics and Population Dynamics
Donald W. Shurley, Extension Agricultural Economics

1997. The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service Extension,Forest Resources Unit. FOR. 97-003.

This publication summarizes legislative, regulatory, and administrative language associated with the CRP. This summary is for education and information purposes only. Specific interpretations, decisions and approvals within the CRP can only be made by your Farm Service Agency representative.

Enhanced CRP!

The productivity of land is the foundation of personal, social and ecological wealth. Protecting land productivity is important to us all. The USDA-Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is one program currently being enhanced to provide even more opportunities for agricultural producers and landowners to better conserve and improve their natural resources.

Voluntary 10-year Program

The CRP is a voluntary program offering annual rental payments over a 10-year period, as well as cost-share assistance, to producers establishing specific types of plant cover on marginal farmland. The CRP encourages producers to plant grass and trees on areas prone to erosion in order to improve soil, water, and wildlife resources.

The USDA-Farm Service Agency (FSA) is responsible

Buzz, sure you'll not believe this, but heres the program. hoping you'll see the part about wildlife resources. sure you'll try to argue, but that will just prove that you are as arrogant as I think you are.

 

[BuzzH]

TLC,

Who gets paid by the federal government under the CRP?

Is it the state game and fish agencies?

Is it the Federal Land management Agencies?

Is it the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

OR IS IT PRIVATE LANDOWNERS?

When you answer that question...then ask yourself if this statement you made is true: "the CRP program also sends monies to the wildlife across the country".

What wildlife agency recieves that money across the country? Surely you dont mean deer and elk have a few Ben Franklins in their wallets...do you? Never seen a ditch parrot with a quarter in its pocket.

Like I said, the real beneficiary of the CRP is the individual farmer and they recieve all the money for enrolling their land in the program.

Like I said, there is a spin-off from the program that does help wildlife. But to say that wildlife across the country recieve crp money is simply not true.

Oh, and CRP is huge where I'm from in Montana. Matter of fact, I've helped fence a thousand or two acres of CRP south east of Great Falls.

 

[TLC]

Buzz, since you want to get technical and verbatum on me, lets go there. believe that what it says is the producers get the monies. not just farmers. that means that anyone who wants to put land in CRP can do it. whether that be farmers, landowners, game ranchers(not getting in to that on here), and even the state can put land in the program. we have state land near me that is in the program. not sure how they do the monetary deal with that. always seemed a bit funny for the state to get federal money for that, but whatever. even colleges have land in CRP. U of I is known for their agricultural stuff, and they have land in the program. Point is, says on what I posted that wildlife resources are benefitted. my tax dollars here in illinois may benefit you out there in montana. you meaning the wildlife in your state.

as far as CRP in montana, have no idea what they have there. been over 20 years since I lived in billings, and the closest I've been to great falls is when I went thru butte on the way to idaho last year.

 

[TLC]

and to answer the question: yes, it is true. wildlife resources benefits from the monies.

 

[MattK]

TLC- Just curious as I don't know where the money comes from for the CRP...If it is federally funded, doesn't that money come from tax payers? Thus giving the case that even more of the funding for wildlife comes from the public (ie. every tax paying citizen?)

 

[TLC]

Matt, can't remember what it stands for, but will look it up for you, but the money comes from CCC. and yes, that is taxpayer money. the point Tom and I are trying to make is that outdoorsmen put more money into the kitty than the birdwatchers, etc.

Buzz asked me to post where CRP benefits wildlife, and I did that. he still disagrees with what was posted as he wants everything to be taken completely literally.

 

[TLC]

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of Communications News Room 460-A
Washington, DC 20250-1300
Internet: News @usda.gov
Phone: 202-720-4623
World Wide Web Home Page: http://www.usda.gov



Release No. 0016.08



Stevin Westcott (202) 720-4178



CONNER UNVEILS FIRST WILDLIFE PLANS IN NEW CONSERVATION PRACTICE
Acting Secretary Announces 45 Conservation Projects in 18 States to Benefit Endangered and Threatened Wildlife



ST. PAUL, MINN., Jan. 19, 2008 - Acting Agriculture Secretary Chuck Conner said today USDA has approved conservation projects on more than a quarter-million acres in 18 states under a new partnership within the Conservation Reserve Program.



Conner made the announcement during a news conference today at Pheasants Forever's "Pheasant Fest" exhibition being held at the Saint Paul River Centre in St. Paul, Minn.



The projects unveiled today are the first to be approved under a new Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) practice called SAFE, which stands for State Acres For wildlife Enhancement.



When USDA announced this program last year, it set the SAFE enrollment goal at 500,000 acres. Today's announcement approves 45 projects for up to 259,776 of these acres as wildlife habitat for threatened, endangered and other high-priority species. SAFE, like other continuous CRP practices, targets smaller parcels of the most environmentally sensitive land to achieve maximum environmental benefit.



USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) state offices will announce sign-up for these SAFE projects soon. Landowners can enroll by visiting their local FSA service center. USDA will approve additional projects in the near future.



"USDA is ushering in a new era in the history of the Conservation Reserve Program by making it even more focused, results-oriented and community based," said Conner. "These cooperative plans illustrate that, under the Bush Administration's Cooperative Conservation Initiative, government works effectively with state and regional partners across the country to conserve natural resources and help protect America's wildlife legacy for years to come."



The 45 approved projects will help restore and enhance habitat to benefit a wide range of wildlife species, many of which are declining or threatened with extinction. In Maine, for example, enrolling 250 acres in York and Cumberland counties in CRP will help increase habitat for the New England cottontail rabbit, which is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.



By enrolling more than 14,000 acres of agricultural land in CRP, conservation partners expect that the Texas Gulf Coast Prairies SAFE project will benefit the mottled duck, northern
bobwhite quail, Attwater's greater prairie chicken and numerous other bird species that are declining or of special conservation concern.



In Washington, conservation partners determined that enrolling 500 acres of the Olympic Peninsula in CRP will increase habitat and forage for the declining Olympic elk herd.



In Minnesota, Pheasants Forever and other project partners expect the enrollment of 23,100 acres in CRP will restore and enhance habitat for ring-necked pheasant populations, as well as benefit waterfowl, greater prairie chickens and other birds.



Projects are also approved for: Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin. A fact sheet with summaries of all approved SAFE projects is at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/safepr08.pdf.



Under SAFE, state and local agencies, non-profit organizations and other conservation partners determined geographic areas where enrollment of farm land in CRP would benefit threatened, endangered or other high priority species. Project partners then developed conservation proposals that included enrolling land in the designated geographic areas in CRP using existing CRP practices for the benefit of specific species of concern. Last year, USDA accepted SAFE proposals developed by these organizations. FSA evaluated SAFE proposals to determine whether the selected practices would create the desired habitat. To be accepted by FSA, SAFE proposals had to be approved by qualified wildlife professionals and include a wildlife monitoring and evaluation plan.



SAFE is a wildlife management tool that helps state and regional agencies, non-profit organizations and others to address local wildlife objectives through habitat restoration. SAFE gives conservation partners the flexibility to create projects and install conservation practices that target the specific needs of high-value wildlife species. By developing SAFE projects, these organizations and their partners are enhancing the effectiveness of CRP by helping to establish higher-quality habitat and healthier ecosystems for species of concern and other wildlife. More information about SAFE is at: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/safe08.pdf.



Under CRP, farmers and ranchers enroll eligible land in 10- to 15-year contracts with USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). FSA administers CRP on behalf of CCC. Participants plant appropriate cover such as grasses and trees in crop fields and along streams. These plantings help prevent soil and nutrients from running into regional waterways and affecting water quality. The long-term vegetative cover also improves wildlife habitat and soil quality.



#






Fact Sheets

News Releases

Emergency Designation News Releases

Spotlights

Media Relations Contacts

Public Service Announcements

Meetings & Events

County Committee Elections

Speeches and Presentations

Media Gallery

Subscriptions

eFOIA





View FSA Biographies














FSA Home | USDA.gov | Common Questions | Site Map | Policies and Links


hopefully, this will answer more of the questions about CRP and wildlife benefits. you know, the ones the states don't receive

 

[BuzzH]

Starting to look more and more like the average taxpayer (hippies, granolas, hikers, birdwatchers, etc.) are contributing quite a bit to wildlife through their tax dollars and farm subsidy programs...who'd a thunk it?

By the way, What percentage of tax payers hunt?

 

[TLC]

Buzz, was lucky to find the stuff I did. have no idea where to find those numbers, but, my simple answer would be, not nearly enough as we are losing hunters every year. is it even near the 30% mark any more? but the good thing is that more people have taken up fishing. can't tell you how many people I talk to that fish, but don't hunt. and when they give the reason for the difference, I just shake my head and walk away.

 

[TOM IN TENNESSEE]

Actually Buzz, I hunt "free" in TN since I don't buy an annual license....I bought a $1000 Lifetime license when they first came out.
TWRA has cooperative agreements with USFS and Nat'l Wildlife Refuges and TWRA manages the hunts and spends TWRA monies on them.
State G&F officiers usually are the ones enforcing hunting laws and doing wildlife mnmgt tasks thru out the country on all the various public lands owned by the Feds.
One other little thing....your agrguement would only be valid if only non-hunting grandmas, hippies and bird watchers pay taxes.
Since we all pay taxes, they are putting no more in Public lands than hunters. Which leaves hunters fees and excise taxes paying a huge disproportiant amounts.

 

[MattK]

Tom- While hunters shoulder a share of the monies used to take care of wildlife, other sources have been vital to the conservation of wildlife also. The Pittman-Roberts Act of the 1930's has funded wildlife as much (if not more) than hunting and fishing license. Eventhough people who hunt and fish get hit with this excise tax so also do those who hike, bike, and watch birds. They are all users of public land and pay for this.

You feel that only people who hunt and fish should have the only say because of the money they put into the system. You couldn't be more incorrect. If it weren't for people voting for and making laws about stream access, open space, conservation easements, public lands policies, etc. You wouldn't have to worry about wildlife. If it weren't for the hippy who wants sensible land use and conserving and preserving, there would be a deadlier problem than just the wolf for Elk and Deer. It would be a pure loss of habitat. Even fishing has seen problems due to pollution and loss of habitat. If it weren't for a lot of these "tree-hugging" type policies and laws, YOUR hunting money attempting to manage wildlife wouldn't be the issue...There would be no habitat for these animals to live in. It takes more than money to manage Public wildlife and lands. If you don't get the correct policies and laws passed and keep good public perception, your money will do you no good. So I guess, you can piss off the local hippies and call people "tree-huggers" but remember, when you want their vote...don't expect them to stand up for YOUR rights on public lands.