Should State and Federal Org’s Fund Private Landowners?

There are so many experts in here who don’t own land (but know everything) that it’s hard to keep up.

I’ll just stick to the other threads rather than trying.

jimmysiewert wrote:

I just love that I have to pay for the trees from the DNR nursery to plant on my land – but then the DNR / Ag Dept. gives grants to farmers in my area to tear trees out to plant more crops. Makes a lot of sense

Would love to see a source, never heard of such a thing, and I know its not the DNR they have very few private land programs.

Bucky “Well said.

There’s land for sale. Those who want to buy it can line up to get filthy rich off all the CRP profits if they want.

…or perhaps they b***h as a mechanism of their anger because they cannot afford the land”

Right. I’ve seen where someone wants to buy hunting land and having a program to enroll into after purchase is the deciding factor to help offset costs, but they aren’t getting rich. Or where a piece of land comes for sale with RIM/CREP which reduces the price due to the restrictions, which otherwise may not been affordable.

All things aside I was killing plenty of pheasants before CRP.

If you want to talk about where farmers are messing up the ecosystem lets flip over to discussing drain tile.

I’ll go with that. Big Ag, drain tile and ethanol plants are destroying the ecosystem. One can plant all the trees you want – but if you don’t have the ecosystem to go along with it – well, we are finished. Around my area I watch great habitat fence lines being tore out every year – more and more by these big ag/dairy farms. And it’s true as true when I stated that farmers are getting grants to tear out trees on subpar land to put in more crop. As they say – “just put more fertilizer down!” I am assuming these grants are from Ag Dept. The farm owner and cat operator are good honest people. As he told me, “you can’t lose being a farmer right now. They just keep giving me free money!”.

I’d be fine with drain tile being banned for agricultural usage. If you’re running ground with miles of drain tile then there’s a reason that ground stays that consistently wet and it serves a purpose.

I agree there is a lot of irony in our broke govt funding Big Ag to drain every possible slew and pond, fertilize it all and grow row crops everywhere possible while at the same time subsidizing all these other “conservation” programs to protect our air, land and water.

Even more ironic is the celebrity hunter with the inherited 450 acres on multiple govt subsidies, in partnership with USFWS just cut down a huge patch of woods and brush, treated portions of it so it won’t grow back and burned it off (pretty sure that’s not good for our land, air and water) so that they can restore it to polinator friendly prairie grass and an oak savannah. The same process has happened on my local WMA over the course of the 4 years I’ve lived there as well. To add insult to injury on the WMA they do the tilling, burning and treating right before hunting season, and it’s gone from seeing deer and pheasants frequently, to not at all.

Clearing every inch of land for row crops and tiling land are bad deals. So is fire suppression. There used to be many fires that would regenerate prairie and forest back in the day.

The reality is here that the Agriculture business has a lot of power and they are always going to be more influential than the conservation or environmental groups. They just are.

If you think otherwise, I’ve got some tillable land to sell you.

Does anyone look at CRP programs as the landowner getting their tax money back Vs seeing it as “your” tax dollar funding it? I ask because I see this come up frequently on various forums. Throughout discussions, its often presented as the landowner is receiving the funds but never pays in.

Randy Wieland wrote:

Does anyone look at CRP programs as the landowner getting their tax money back Vs seeing it as “your” tax dollar funding it? I ask because I see this come up frequently on various forums. Throughout discussions, its often presented as the landowner is receiving the funds but never pays in.

That should be called the Universal View of Government Programs.

My view of the other guy getting government program money: He’s a freeloader getting undeserved government money at my expense.

My view of me getting government program money: I deserve it because I pay in so much.

Randy Wieland wrote:

Does anyone look at CRP programs as the landowner getting their tax money back Vs seeing it as “your” tax dollar funding it? I ask because I see this come up frequently on various forums. Throughout discussions, its often presented as the landowner is receiving the funds but never pays in.

No because it not just their tax money. Not that it bothers me at all, but that logic isn’t logical.

That should be called the Universal View of Government Programs.

My view of the other guy getting government program money: He’s a freeloader getting undeserved government money at my expense.

My view of me getting government program money: I deserve it because I pay in so much.

[/quote]

Man o man. Some days you just got it all figured out. But again, it’s not the land owner getting just THEIR taxes back. That makes no sense. And again these programs bother me absolutely 0. But come on. And we can’t forget, there is alot of dumb people who voice their opinion far to often on the big internet. Every one is a expert in all sorts of things today. Crp and all these can create alot of good. And it’s OK for us to shimmy money around for these things. Rather spend taxes on our land rather then sex changes for prisoners

Isn’t property taxes more of a local tax? County, city etc? CRP and other programs are funded through a the federal farm bill. I know money is fungible.
The same farm bill that funds the CRP program is the same farm bill that funds the WIA money given to most states for their programs. I am all for providing more access.
I get it that CRP benefits more people than just the landowner. I am not against it. As I said in my original post I am torn on the issue.

Just this week the wired to hunt podcast as well as the whitetail podcast had episodes about buying land and getting into programs to subsidize the cost of purchasing hunting land. So they are promoting using taxpayer money to purchase their dream hunting farms.

Do you know why farmers curve the bill on their ball caps so much? So much they can fit their heads in the mailbox when looking for their subsidy check.

Permanent conservation easements save taxpayers way more money in the long run vs. cropland. A lot of the land going into easemenents is environmentally sensitive, i.e. valuable drained wetland complexes, riparian areas, threatened or endangered species habitat

Direct payments are still a thing, even though they were supposed to be done with the 2014 farm bill. Congress has approved direct payments for low crop prices and the Trump administration has already indicated another round is likely. Those payments stop when land is permanently protected.

isu22andy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Brittman wrote:</div>
CRP payments were competitive a few decades ago, but at this time a landowner usually can get a better return farming or leasing than CRP payments offer.

CRP can offer landowners a fixed income when weather takes out their crops (flooding, drought, hail). Also provides a buffer when grain prices drop below the price it cost to plant, nurture, and harvest.

CRP grass can provide an emergency hay buffer in drought years. Pheasant hunters know this all too well when you drive up to a WIA and it is hayed.

Emergency buffer for hay – my favorite is when they enroll in the emergency program then sell the bales for profit . Double dipping .

Right now the CRP payment is not great – but around 10 years ago it was 3-400 dollars an acre while crop rent was 250-300 in the area I grew up in – for select parcels .

When corn was 7 bucks in 2007- 2010ish ? I thought I’d never see CRP make a comeback but it did in Western IA.

Are they not still taking a rental rate reduction for the emergency haying or grazing? It wasn’t market rate, but that wasn’t the point. Haying CRP and other program land isn’t just for a local farmer, the overall effect of the hay keeps livestock guys in business around the country. Think what the price of hay would be without that additional hay on the market.

jimmysiewert wrote:

I just love that I have to pay for the trees from the DNR nursery to plant on my land – but then the DNR / Ag Dept. gives grants to farmers in my area to tear trees out to plant more crops. Makes a lot of sense

What DNR or MDA pays farmers to tear out trees and plant crops?

B-man wrote:

Bucky, I have the same question as Joel.

Do you know if there’s any tax breaks if land is enrolled in CRP??

I have 7 acres of low production hay field that only costs me money and doesn’t do much if anything at all for wildlife.

Since it’s less than 10 acres I don’t qualify for any ag breaks.

Up to each county, but generally CRP is just treated as cropland that is temporarily in idle grass. So not usually a tax break.

Brittman wrote:

Looking at CREP from a SD vs. MN basis. Both appear to be a coordinated effort between the state and the USDA and is generally a step up in habitat formation/protection from regular CRP.

SD requires CREP participants in the James River Valley to open that land to public hunting. MN does not.

Crep is where you jointly enroll land in CRP and a permanent easement. You get the lump sum payment, plus the annual crp payment for the length of one crp contract.

jimmysiewert wrote:

I’ll go with that. Big Ag, drain tile and ethanol plants are destroying the ecosystem. One can plant all the trees you want – but if you don’t have the ecosystem to go along with it – well, we are finished. Around my area I watch great habitat fence lines being tore out every year – more and more by these big ag/dairy farms. And it’s true as true when I stated that farmers are getting grants to tear out trees on subpar land to put in more crop. As they say – “just put more fertilizer down!” I am assuming these grants are from Ag Dept. The farm owner and cat operator are good honest people. As he told me, “you can’t lose being a farmer right now. They just keep giving me free money!”.

Where can I sign up for this grant? What’s it called?

BigWerm wrote:

I agree there is a lot of irony in our broke govt funding Big Ag to drain every possible slew and pond, fertilize it all and grow row crops everywhere possible while at the same time subsidizing all these other “conservation” programs to protect our air, land and water.

Even more ironic is the celebrity hunter with the inherited 450 acres on multiple govt subsidies, in partnership with USFWS just cut down a huge patch of woods and brush, treated portions of it so it won’t grow back and burned it off (pretty sure that’s not good for our land, air and water) so that they can restore it to polinator friendly prairie grass and an oak savannah. The same process has happened on my local WMA over the course of the 4 years I’ve lived there as well. To add insult to injury on the WMA they do the tilling, burning and treating right before hunting season, and it’s gone from seeing deer and pheasants frequently, to not at all.

You should go talk to one of the biologists at the agency who did that work. They can explain the goal. Trees aren’t all good, most agencies are trying to match the original habitat.

How many people responding in this thread own more than a few acres of land, have dealt with CRP & CREP contracts and SWCD programs, farm their own land or lease out tillable acreage, etc?

There’s more misinformation than possible to sift through. Some of the statements absolutely scream “I have no f***ing idea what I’m talking about”

I do

smallie83 wrote:

You should go talk to one of the biologists at the agency who did that work. They can explain the goal. Trees aren’t all good, most agencies are trying to match the original habitat.

I spoke to USFWS on the land by me and the celebrity hunter about his USFWS project. In both cases it was to rebuild the grasslands more pollinator friendly and rebuild/help the oak Savannah. On the public land they killed dozens of old, huge and healthy pin oaks in order to grow more burr oaks. And I’m not sure what moment in time they look at as “original habitat” as this stuff is always evolving.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>smallie83 wrote:</div>
You should go talk to one of the biologists at the agency who did that work. They can explain the goal. Trees aren’t all good, most agencies are trying to match the original habitat.

I spoke to USFWS on the land by me and the celebrity hunter about his USFWS project. In both cases it was to rebuild the grasslands more pollinator friendly and rebuild/help the oak Savannah. On the public land they killed dozens of old, huge and healthy pin oaks in order to grow more burr oaks. And I’m not sure what moment in time they look at as “original habitat” as this stuff is always evolving.

Typically 1800’s land surveys.

Most USFWS Waterfowl Production Areas were purchased with duck stamp dollars. Goal is usually waterfowl habitat with an emphasis on nesting. Goes against what a lot of minnesotans want for deer hunting, but deer isn’t the goal.

smallie83 wrote:

Most USFWS Waterfowl Production Areas were purchased with duck stamp dollars. Goal is usually waterfowl habitat with an emphasis on nesting. Goes against what a lot of minnesotans want for deer hunting, but deer isn’t the goal.

These aren’t WPA’s. One is a MN River Valley WMA that was purchased by funds from the airport. The other is a private farm in the driftless area.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>smallie83 wrote:</div>
Most USFWS Waterfowl Production Areas were purchased with duck stamp dollars. Goal is usually waterfowl habitat with an emphasis on nesting. Goes against what a lot of minnesotans want for deer hunting, but deer isn’t the goal.

These aren’t WPA’s. One is a MN River Valley WMA that was purchased by funds from the airport. The other is a private farm in the driftless area.

Wma is dnr. Not sure why you would be talking to fws about dnr land. Private land likely had a habitat easement on it if fws was involved.

smallie83 wrote:

Typically 1800’s land surveys.

Most USFWS Waterfowl Production Areas were purchased with duck stamp dollars. Goal is usually waterfowl habitat with an emphasis on nesting. Goes against what a lot of minnesotans want for deer hunting, but deer isn’t the goal.

I bow hunt some wpas. They can hold piles of deer…

I’m of the opinion that if farmers are feeding the world (which they are) I’m in favor of them. I’m not in favor of developers clear cutting 100’s of acres to build housing on. I’m old school I guess, I value trees more then most things.