Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

BREAKING NEWS: Recent Signups Keep CRP Acreage Near Cap

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Conservationist
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

May 25, 2012

BREAKING NEWS: Recent Signups Keep CRP Acreage Near Cap

By Bob Marshall

Fish, wildlife and sportsmen got good news Friday when Tom Vilsack, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, announced recent and future sign-ups of 5.65 million acres in the Conservation Reserve Program, keeping that keystone conservation program close to its current authorized cap of 32 million acres.

But in an interview with Field & Stream, Vilsack also urged sportsmen to keep the momentum going by urging their congressmen - particularly House members - not to swing the budget axe on conservation funding in the new Farm Bill currently under consideration.

"(Sportsmen) should take some confidence or relief in the numbers we're announcing today, because it shows this administration is committed to CRP and to the outdoors recreational opportunities CRP creates and enhances," Vilsack said.

"(But) they ought to be engaged in encouraging members, especially in the House, not to reduce our commitment to conservation in the future - mainly because it works."

The Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers who enroll in the program to not plant marginal acres, is widely considered the most effective federal conservation program ever. The resulting grasslands not only provide essential upland nesting cover for waterfowl as well as numerous terrestrial species, but it also helps reduce soil erosion and improves water and air quality. It has also been a popular economic boost to the agricultural community, pouring $1.8 billion dollars into farmers' pockets annually.

But the program has come under stress in recent years. First commodity prices soared, drawing some farmers back to planting that non-tilled land. The USDA said it expected to see up to 6 million acres pulled out of CRP this year as contracts expired.

Sportsmen were still reeling from the impacts of that shock when some in congress targeted conservation spending as a way to trim federal spending.

Working with conservation groups, the administration found a way to fund an additional 1.75 million acres in two sign-ups set for this summer. The first will be targeted at highly erodible acres, the second at sensitive grasslands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat.

"When you add what we've just enrolled with the 1.75 million we'll get this summer, that will give us 5.65 million, pretty darn close to the 6 million we're losing, and right at 29.2 million - not far from what the cap is right now," Vilsack said.

He also urged sportsmen to tout the broader economic and environmental benefits of the CRP when pushing  congressmen to preserve funding.

"In 2011 we were able to calculate the reduced nitrogen (because of CRP acres) going into streams (from farm fertilizers) by 623 million pounds, and reduced phosphorous by 124 million pounds," he said.

"When you look at carbon sequestration, we calculated that CRP is equivalent to taking 10 million cars off the road.

"So, this program doesn't just help wildlife, and outdoor recreation, and the farming community, it also has a very significant positive impact on the environment."

Comments (36)

Top Rated
All Comments
from wischneider wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

as I was reading the preview on the main page, after the comment about "House axing the budget," I knew immediately that this was written by Bob Marshall.

Bob, go back to Huffington Post. Your anti-conservative, fear mongering propoganda is not what we want to see on Field and Stream.

-9 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2lb.test wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wischneider, I didn't see any fear mongering or partisanship in this post. it's pro-conservation but doesn't mention any political parties or call any names. this is good news for all sportsmen and their future generations.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Wis- why don't you piss off and go waste your time at your anti-conservation whiny tea party meetings.

You have no business here since you clearly don't give a damn about any of these issues except politicizing them.

Take your anti-freedom Deutschland-born arsch and get lost if you can't respect freedom of speech.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Since the "axe" must fall, why should the USDA be exempted from cuts?

"...The Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers who enroll in the program to not plant marginal acres, is widely considered the most effective federal conservation program ever. The resulting grasslands not only provide essential upland nesting cover for waterfowl as well as numerous terrestrial species, but it also helps reduce soil erosion and improves water and air quality. It has also been a popular economic boost to the agricultural community, pouring $1.8 billion dollars into farmers' pockets annually...."

This is supposedly "marginally" productive land. When the "ethanol" craze hit, farmers took thousands of acres of "marginally" productive land and turned it into "High yield" corn production!
The CRP program literally "pays" farmers tax dollars to "do nothing"!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wischnieder:
You sound like the type of person who would walk into a voting booth and vote for anyone with an (R) behind their name, without ever having heard their name before. It's that sort of you're-either-with-us-or-against-us mentality that's sending this nation down the crapper.

Field and Stream is an outdoor pursuits publication. Issues like this should be one of the most important issues to sportsmen - especially waterfowl hunters.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

FirstBubba:
The CRP program literally "pays" farmers tax dollars to "raise wildlife"!

There, I fixed it for you. I'd rather a couple billion tax dollars go to CRP than the majority of other programs we spend money on.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wischneider,
This post is only "anti-conservative" if you believe conservatism and conservation are inherently contradictory.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

You haven't "fixed" anything hermit crab, you're just shoveling tax dollars down a "rat" (or beaver or badger or fox etc, etc) hole. Why not pay half on the nation's rising debt and cut CRP payments in half? The farmers can then do half of nothing! It won't "fix" the problem, but it would help.

Bob81
You don't have to be a Conservative to practice conservation.
All Liberals don't practice conservation.
Conservation isn't exclusively Liberal, nor Conservative.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

"All Liberals don't practice conservation.
Conservation isn't exclusively Liberal, nor Conservative."

First Bubba, I agree completely. What I don't agree with is Wischeider's assertion that any defense of conservation is an attack on conservatism.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

-1?
That's the best you've got?
Your kindergarten teacher wouldn't let you "go potty" so now you're "chapped"? LOL!!!
Gimme a break!

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Personally Bob81, I'd think his words were aimed more at Mr. Marshall rather than conservation or conservatism.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

There is actually someone on this thread that would take on the prophetic words of Bubba? Bubba Knows. I want all to feel the pain of this terrible economy that has been created by this administration. No one should excape. Maybe next go round people will think when they enter the polling booth.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kenton wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

I have 9 acres of CRP/CREP land I signed up 5 or 6 years ago. The land signed up was no different than the rest of the farm land I own. The CRP/CREP acreage are the same type of prairie grasses with the CREP program targeted to control erosion, silt build up and fertilizer polution in rivers & streams. For those of you that say its a waste of tax dollars, dont whine about low pheasants and quail populations. CRP/CREP provided essential cover that you wont find in your average farm communities. With modern farming practices of no-til and the removal of fence rows upland game need CRP to thrive. I might add I could rent out the same acreage and make much more than CRP pays.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

CRP is very important for a lot of the game birds we all like to hunt. i'm all for it!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

I'll buy the need for CRP. I hunt it a lot for Sharptails. My dream is to win the lotto, own a lot of acres, and have food plots, good cover, windrows, incubatots, learn the science behind good habitat for pheasants, and other game birds. And then to hunt behind good bird dogs...my idea of heaven. Having a good trout stream flowing through the property might be a little to much to ask.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

i don't know how you can hunt and fish and think crp is a waste of money.
the only propaganda and fear mongering i hear is from the nra talking about obama taking away our guns.

i also support crp because i would like somewhere to go to get my lab puppy into a lot of pheasants

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

If you'll go back and read, I DID NOT advocate wiping out the CRP program, but simply a scale back. Think "all things in moderation".
Pittman Robertson Act funds belong to sportsmen, no doubt! USDA funds, on the other hand, are American tax dollars.
My point is, because of America's current debt situation, doesn't it make sense to trim back spending just a little?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

According to my local FSA office, just because a property is in CRP doesn't mean it's open to the public. You must still ask permission to hunt.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Bubba...I do believe you are right. And we had better hope out here west that the Sage Grouse is not listed on the Endangered Species. There has been a panel of 16 Idahoans that are desperately appealing to the feds to not list the Sage Grouse. WE have 10's of thousands of acres of Sage brush, and CRP ajacent land as habitat, but the EPA wants to list the Sage Grouse so they can stop any Natural Gas, or oil generation supply on those lands in Idaho, and in Wyoming, and ajacent states. There is a booming economy going on with high paying jobs, and tax revenues being generated, workers coming from all over the country that need work, that the EPA would shutdown. A lot of that CPR would be shutdown for public access as well I do believe. That's why I want all to pay for this administration's destructive policies...no free passes! We have 40 cents on the dollar being borrowed going to just pay the interest on our massive debt that could be going to provide needed projects.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Bubba:
I've rarely hunted on any CRP land, but I hunt waterfowl in Oklahoma, and I benefit greatly from the CRP program.

I realize there's a need to scale things back, but I think it's worth investigating everything before simply reducing every program by XX%. How many small towns in the Dakotas and elsewhere get a big economic boost during bird hunting seasons? How many hunting industry jobs exist due to good bird hunting that is directly related to CRP?

I don't have any idea how much of a return on the government's investment there is, or if there's ever been a study on it done, but if there is, I'd be very curious to see the results of it. I'd certainly rather the government be indirectly subsidizing the small town folks and hunting industries than spending out the wazoo to keep our men and women in harm's way overseas in this war.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

i wonder why conservation programs are always the first to be cut by certain groups? and i wonder why so many sportsmen seem to support this?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wisc14:
It puzzles the dickens out of me too. It's as if they either don't know or can't remember why those programs were enacted in the first place!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wisc14 You wonder? Really? When folks are eating dirt. When 1/3 of the eligible work force isn't working to cut out recreation programs first! And do you think this administration cares about who has been driven into poverty?...or what benefit of economic return needs to be considered? If so, then why prevent the Keystone Pipeline that would have produced over 100,000 good paying jobs if allowed to be built? And if you are from Wisc. understand why Gov. of Wisc. will be re-elected against the will of this administration.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

It's economics guys! If you're overdrawn at the bank, do you buy fuel to get to work or buy ice cream?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Bubba
If you're overdrawn at the bank, cutting ice cream (i.e. CRP) isn't going to fix your financial problems. If you can't afford both ice cream and fuel, may I suggest trading your gas guzzler in for a more fuel efficient vehicle, or downsizing your home and lifestyle to better suit your means? How much money are we spending to keep our men and women in harm's way in afghanistan?

I can't believe sportsmen are actually debating this issue. It's like a hunter arguing that duck stamps aren't worthwhile. Do you even know why the CRP program started?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

May I suggest if you can't afford ice cream and fuel, don't buy ice cream! Period!
Do I "WANT" our military in Armpitistan? Of course not!
The US has already had three "terrorist attacks (Flt 93, Pentagon and the WTC!) on American soil.
You want to fight them here or there? They ARE NOT going to quit!
CRP? Yep! It's the excuse FDR used to shovel more tax money out the door to get farmers to do that they should have been doing all along! Then FDR could say, "Hey, look at me! I "cured" the Dust Bowl!"

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

"...to get farmers to do that they should have been doing all along!"

Well, at least we agree on something. I don't like the fact that it "rewards" people for not working, but I'd rather that than the alternative (being more polluted waterways and drastically lower waterfowl numbers).

By the way, FDR died 40 years before it was ever enacted.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Passage year (1985) makes no difference. There are still hardearned, American tax dollars paying farmers to do what they should do anyway. I still maintain a trim back applied to the national debt wouldn't help.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

LOL!!!

"...wouldn't hurt!..."
Or
"...would help! ..."

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

"There are still hardearned, American tax dollars paying farmers to do what they should do anyway?"

If you were a farmer, without CRP, what motivation is there to leave some crop land fallow? There is none. I guess if you're a die-hard hunter, you'd receive some benefit in the form of seeing extra ducklings in the springtime. Other than that, there is none. CRP provides that motivation.

I agree with a trim back, but I think a better solution than a XX% reduction to everything is to analyze all programs, and do a cost benefit analysis on them. Look into CRP and you'll likely find that the $2B per year that goes in is easily injected back into the economy of small towns in the upper midwest and hunting industries, all being paid out by the hunting and birdwatching population. If they're going to cut it, I'd also be in favor of jacking the price of waterfowl stamps to help cover those sort of costs.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Here you go "crab"! A portion of the property I own qualifies for CRP! I refused CRP payments and I don't "farm" the area! I don't have to worry about the Gov't telling me what I can or can't do on or to my property. In fact, last summer I paid $75/hr for several "dozer" hours to fill in and stop erosion at three different spots. Native grasses have filled in nicely, thank you. Had it been in CRP, I couldn't have corrected the problems.
I can take CRP money and lose 3 or 4 cubic yards of soil down stream annually, or just be a good steward and do the "right" thing!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

wisc. "fear mongering?" when the NRA says Obama wants to take away your guns? What is it about the facts you don't understand? It is well documented that the Obama Administration "wants to take away your guns." Look at the background of the folks he's put in his administration like Rahm Emmanuel, and like the Supreme Court Justices he has appointed. And another term? He's going to get, more than likely, two more appointees..but Naw, just propoganda!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from DaveCO wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

Any post by Bob that mentions any federal conservation program draws out all the same old tired lines about how we need to cut the budget. Let's get one thing clear: conservation programs did not get our country into debt and cutting them will not solve the problem. We could completely eliminate CRP and every single other conservation program and you know what? Not only would it barely be a blip, but I can guarantee you that the Defense Department and corporate welfare guys would be right there to grab the savings and dump them into their own programs: because that's what they've done for the last couple of decades as we have slowly starved conservation programs and everything else has continued to grow.

I want to get the federal budget under control, we all do. But hunters and anglers should not keep putting our own necks on the chopping block. We should not even be debating CRP! It is one of the absolutely most crystal clear examples of government money that is well-spent on voluntary, non-regulatory conservation that has kept private land from being developed, provided habitat, and kept rural communities afloat.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

Bubba
I don't have any clue what you did or didn't do, if your land would've actually qualified for CRP, if you have any clue what native species of grasses are, but if what you say is true, then good for you. The fact remains that most farmers (since you never said you are one, I assume you're not) aren't going to do it if there's no benefit to them: what's "right" to sportsmen isn't the same as what's "right" to a farmer.

Sayfu
"It is well documented that the Obama Administration wants to take away your guns."

He's a democratic president, what did you think he'd do, select right-wing cabinet members or justices? You speak of some "facts", but what has he actually done or said that's really, truly, affected your ability to own or buy a gun? I never voted for the guy, but I'm much more worried about issues that actually affect my ability to hunt, like CRP and the like.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kenton wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

Paying farmers what they should do anyway??? There arent many recreational farmers, they do it to make a profit... With the price of land, fuel, seed, fertilizer, machinery, taxes and insurance what you call doing the right thing would put most farmers out of business. Farming is a risky business. Every years a gamble on the weather and crop prices.... As HC noted above, without CRP payments theres no incentive to participate...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

DaveCO, very well put.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from 2lb.test wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wischneider, I didn't see any fear mongering or partisanship in this post. it's pro-conservation but doesn't mention any political parties or call any names. this is good news for all sportsmen and their future generations.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from DaveCO wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

Any post by Bob that mentions any federal conservation program draws out all the same old tired lines about how we need to cut the budget. Let's get one thing clear: conservation programs did not get our country into debt and cutting them will not solve the problem. We could completely eliminate CRP and every single other conservation program and you know what? Not only would it barely be a blip, but I can guarantee you that the Defense Department and corporate welfare guys would be right there to grab the savings and dump them into their own programs: because that's what they've done for the last couple of decades as we have slowly starved conservation programs and everything else has continued to grow.

I want to get the federal budget under control, we all do. But hunters and anglers should not keep putting our own necks on the chopping block. We should not even be debating CRP! It is one of the absolutely most crystal clear examples of government money that is well-spent on voluntary, non-regulatory conservation that has kept private land from being developed, provided habitat, and kept rural communities afloat.

+7 Good Comment? | | Report
from RealGoodMan wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Wis- why don't you piss off and go waste your time at your anti-conservation whiny tea party meetings.

You have no business here since you clearly don't give a damn about any of these issues except politicizing them.

Take your anti-freedom Deutschland-born arsch and get lost if you can't respect freedom of speech.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

FirstBubba:
The CRP program literally "pays" farmers tax dollars to "raise wildlife"!

There, I fixed it for you. I'd rather a couple billion tax dollars go to CRP than the majority of other programs we spend money on.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

"All Liberals don't practice conservation.
Conservation isn't exclusively Liberal, nor Conservative."

First Bubba, I agree completely. What I don't agree with is Wischeider's assertion that any defense of conservation is an attack on conservatism.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kenton wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

I have 9 acres of CRP/CREP land I signed up 5 or 6 years ago. The land signed up was no different than the rest of the farm land I own. The CRP/CREP acreage are the same type of prairie grasses with the CREP program targeted to control erosion, silt build up and fertilizer polution in rivers & streams. For those of you that say its a waste of tax dollars, dont whine about low pheasants and quail populations. CRP/CREP provided essential cover that you wont find in your average farm communities. With modern farming practices of no-til and the removal of fence rows upland game need CRP to thrive. I might add I could rent out the same acreage and make much more than CRP pays.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wischnieder:
You sound like the type of person who would walk into a voting booth and vote for anyone with an (R) behind their name, without ever having heard their name before. It's that sort of you're-either-with-us-or-against-us mentality that's sending this nation down the crapper.

Field and Stream is an outdoor pursuits publication. Issues like this should be one of the most important issues to sportsmen - especially waterfowl hunters.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Bubba
If you're overdrawn at the bank, cutting ice cream (i.e. CRP) isn't going to fix your financial problems. If you can't afford both ice cream and fuel, may I suggest trading your gas guzzler in for a more fuel efficient vehicle, or downsizing your home and lifestyle to better suit your means? How much money are we spending to keep our men and women in harm's way in afghanistan?

I can't believe sportsmen are actually debating this issue. It's like a hunter arguing that duck stamps aren't worthwhile. Do you even know why the CRP program started?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

"There are still hardearned, American tax dollars paying farmers to do what they should do anyway?"

If you were a farmer, without CRP, what motivation is there to leave some crop land fallow? There is none. I guess if you're a die-hard hunter, you'd receive some benefit in the form of seeing extra ducklings in the springtime. Other than that, there is none. CRP provides that motivation.

I agree with a trim back, but I think a better solution than a XX% reduction to everything is to analyze all programs, and do a cost benefit analysis on them. Look into CRP and you'll likely find that the $2B per year that goes in is easily injected back into the economy of small towns in the upper midwest and hunting industries, all being paid out by the hunting and birdwatching population. If they're going to cut it, I'd also be in favor of jacking the price of waterfowl stamps to help cover those sort of costs.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

CRP is very important for a lot of the game birds we all like to hunt. i'm all for it!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wisc14:
It puzzles the dickens out of me too. It's as if they either don't know or can't remember why those programs were enacted in the first place!

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bob81 wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wischneider,
This post is only "anti-conservative" if you believe conservatism and conservation are inherently contradictory.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

i don't know how you can hunt and fish and think crp is a waste of money.
the only propaganda and fear mongering i hear is from the nra talking about obama taking away our guns.

i also support crp because i would like somewhere to go to get my lab puppy into a lot of pheasants

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Bubba:
I've rarely hunted on any CRP land, but I hunt waterfowl in Oklahoma, and I benefit greatly from the CRP program.

I realize there's a need to scale things back, but I think it's worth investigating everything before simply reducing every program by XX%. How many small towns in the Dakotas and elsewhere get a big economic boost during bird hunting seasons? How many hunting industry jobs exist due to good bird hunting that is directly related to CRP?

I don't have any idea how much of a return on the government's investment there is, or if there's ever been a study on it done, but if there is, I'd be very curious to see the results of it. I'd certainly rather the government be indirectly subsidizing the small town folks and hunting industries than spending out the wazoo to keep our men and women in harm's way overseas in this war.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from wisc14 wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

i wonder why conservation programs are always the first to be cut by certain groups? and i wonder why so many sportsmen seem to support this?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

"...to get farmers to do that they should have been doing all along!"

Well, at least we agree on something. I don't like the fact that it "rewards" people for not working, but I'd rather that than the alternative (being more polluted waterways and drastically lower waterfowl numbers).

By the way, FDR died 40 years before it was ever enacted.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hermit crab wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

Bubba
I don't have any clue what you did or didn't do, if your land would've actually qualified for CRP, if you have any clue what native species of grasses are, but if what you say is true, then good for you. The fact remains that most farmers (since you never said you are one, I assume you're not) aren't going to do it if there's no benefit to them: what's "right" to sportsmen isn't the same as what's "right" to a farmer.

Sayfu
"It is well documented that the Obama Administration wants to take away your guns."

He's a democratic president, what did you think he'd do, select right-wing cabinet members or justices? You speak of some "facts", but what has he actually done or said that's really, truly, affected your ability to own or buy a gun? I never voted for the guy, but I'm much more worried about issues that actually affect my ability to hunt, like CRP and the like.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Kenton wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

Paying farmers what they should do anyway??? There arent many recreational farmers, they do it to make a profit... With the price of land, fuel, seed, fertilizer, machinery, taxes and insurance what you call doing the right thing would put most farmers out of business. Farming is a risky business. Every years a gamble on the weather and crop prices.... As HC noted above, without CRP payments theres no incentive to participate...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

DaveCO, very well put.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

I'll buy the need for CRP. I hunt it a lot for Sharptails. My dream is to win the lotto, own a lot of acres, and have food plots, good cover, windrows, incubatots, learn the science behind good habitat for pheasants, and other game birds. And then to hunt behind good bird dogs...my idea of heaven. Having a good trout stream flowing through the property might be a little to much to ask.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Since the "axe" must fall, why should the USDA be exempted from cuts?

"...The Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farmers who enroll in the program to not plant marginal acres, is widely considered the most effective federal conservation program ever. The resulting grasslands not only provide essential upland nesting cover for waterfowl as well as numerous terrestrial species, but it also helps reduce soil erosion and improves water and air quality. It has also been a popular economic boost to the agricultural community, pouring $1.8 billion dollars into farmers' pockets annually...."

This is supposedly "marginally" productive land. When the "ethanol" craze hit, farmers took thousands of acres of "marginally" productive land and turned it into "High yield" corn production!
The CRP program literally "pays" farmers tax dollars to "do nothing"!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Personally Bob81, I'd think his words were aimed more at Mr. Marshall rather than conservation or conservatism.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

According to my local FSA office, just because a property is in CRP doesn't mean it's open to the public. You must still ask permission to hunt.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Bubba...I do believe you are right. And we had better hope out here west that the Sage Grouse is not listed on the Endangered Species. There has been a panel of 16 Idahoans that are desperately appealing to the feds to not list the Sage Grouse. WE have 10's of thousands of acres of Sage brush, and CRP ajacent land as habitat, but the EPA wants to list the Sage Grouse so they can stop any Natural Gas, or oil generation supply on those lands in Idaho, and in Wyoming, and ajacent states. There is a booming economy going on with high paying jobs, and tax revenues being generated, workers coming from all over the country that need work, that the EPA would shutdown. A lot of that CPR would be shutdown for public access as well I do believe. That's why I want all to pay for this administration's destructive policies...no free passes! We have 40 cents on the dollar being borrowed going to just pay the interest on our massive debt that could be going to provide needed projects.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

If you'll go back and read, I DID NOT advocate wiping out the CRP program, but simply a scale back. Think "all things in moderation".
Pittman Robertson Act funds belong to sportsmen, no doubt! USDA funds, on the other hand, are American tax dollars.
My point is, because of America's current debt situation, doesn't it make sense to trim back spending just a little?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

It's economics guys! If you're overdrawn at the bank, do you buy fuel to get to work or buy ice cream?

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

May I suggest if you can't afford ice cream and fuel, don't buy ice cream! Period!
Do I "WANT" our military in Armpitistan? Of course not!
The US has already had three "terrorist attacks (Flt 93, Pentagon and the WTC!) on American soil.
You want to fight them here or there? They ARE NOT going to quit!
CRP? Yep! It's the excuse FDR used to shovel more tax money out the door to get farmers to do that they should have been doing all along! Then FDR could say, "Hey, look at me! I "cured" the Dust Bowl!"

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

LOL!!!

"...wouldn't hurt!..."
Or
"...would help! ..."

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

There is actually someone on this thread that would take on the prophetic words of Bubba? Bubba Knows. I want all to feel the pain of this terrible economy that has been created by this administration. No one should excape. Maybe next go round people will think when they enter the polling booth.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

wisc14 You wonder? Really? When folks are eating dirt. When 1/3 of the eligible work force isn't working to cut out recreation programs first! And do you think this administration cares about who has been driven into poverty?...or what benefit of economic return needs to be considered? If so, then why prevent the Keystone Pipeline that would have produced over 100,000 good paying jobs if allowed to be built? And if you are from Wisc. understand why Gov. of Wisc. will be re-elected against the will of this administration.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Passage year (1985) makes no difference. There are still hardearned, American tax dollars paying farmers to do what they should do anyway. I still maintain a trim back applied to the national debt wouldn't help.

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

Here you go "crab"! A portion of the property I own qualifies for CRP! I refused CRP payments and I don't "farm" the area! I don't have to worry about the Gov't telling me what I can or can't do on or to my property. In fact, last summer I paid $75/hr for several "dozer" hours to fill in and stop erosion at three different spots. Native grasses have filled in nicely, thank you. Had it been in CRP, I couldn't have corrected the problems.
I can take CRP money and lose 3 or 4 cubic yards of soil down stream annually, or just be a good steward and do the "right" thing!

-2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sayfu wrote 1 year 45 weeks ago

wisc. "fear mongering?" when the NRA says Obama wants to take away your guns? What is it about the facts you don't understand? It is well documented that the Obama Administration "wants to take away your guns." Look at the background of the folks he's put in his administration like Rahm Emmanuel, and like the Supreme Court Justices he has appointed. And another term? He's going to get, more than likely, two more appointees..but Naw, just propoganda!

-3 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

You haven't "fixed" anything hermit crab, you're just shoveling tax dollars down a "rat" (or beaver or badger or fox etc, etc) hole. Why not pay half on the nation's rising debt and cut CRP payments in half? The farmers can then do half of nothing! It won't "fix" the problem, but it would help.

Bob81
You don't have to be a Conservative to practice conservation.
All Liberals don't practice conservation.
Conservation isn't exclusively Liberal, nor Conservative.

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

-1?
That's the best you've got?
Your kindergarten teacher wouldn't let you "go potty" so now you're "chapped"? LOL!!!
Gimme a break!

-4 Good Comment? | | Report
from wischneider wrote 1 year 46 weeks ago

as I was reading the preview on the main page, after the comment about "House axing the budget," I knew immediately that this was written by Bob Marshall.

Bob, go back to Huffington Post. Your anti-conservative, fear mongering propoganda is not what we want to see on Field and Stream.

-9 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs