Future of CRP

[Steve-O]

That’s been brought up many times. You’ll get a few landowners to sign up for that? But there’s issues of course …

I personally would not. I think I get $5000 in CRP right now, and I’m gonna let everyone hunt my farm ?? If the CRP is a 1/2 mile off the road, how would they get to it ??

Defeats the purpose of owning land .

Just read your last statement...so you are saying if you can't have the government pay for the ground, you don't want to own ground?

The purpose on owning ground for me.. that is 2 folds. 1. Investment because everyone wants it but not all can afford. So it's a commodity. 2. I will always have a source of income.

But as we all know, you don't really own anything when it comes to property in 'Merica

 

[Steve-O]

Lots of holes in this imo.

Farmers (row crop) get WAY more money is subsidies. Is that all public too?

Can we crash in people's apartments/hoises that are getting section 8 or other federal subsidy?

Can we have dinner off those getting food cards?

If the dermining factor of what becomes "public" is if thst thing has government funds tied to it, we'll we have entered communism.

No holes really because you can't get blood out of a turnip. If you have seen those properties they get to stay in. I've stayed in better places in 3rd world countries. If you want to eat the food they get to use, sure. I'd rather eat my cattle from the feed lot

What I'm saying is most of those people don't have a pot to piss in or are in hard times...no "investments" per day. So your statement is comparing apples to oranges. Those that are buying land...is an investment. And you have other sources of income to do so. The government doesn't buy me gold coins...or...does it?

I knew this ruffle the feathers of the landowners that "rely" on the government welfare dollars to offset the cost of purchasing ground. If the government took it away would you be able to keep your dream of owning ground?

Communism is a bit far stretch. Hopefully you have had the opportunity to be in a communistic society because if you have...I think this statement would be different. We bit different.

But then again...who's the puppet and who's the puppet master. If government is involved... you are under the government microscope. And at their "requirements".

 

[Hardwood11]

Just read your last statement...so you are saying if you can't have the government pay for the ground, you don't want to own ground?

The purpose on owning ground for me.. that is 2 folds. 1. Investment because everyone wants it but not all can afford. So it's a commodity. 2. I will always have a source of income.

But as we all know, you don't really own anything when it comes to property in 'Merica

No that’s not what I said. If I have to let everyone hunt on my land it defeats the purpose! That’s public land ? I could just hunt public …

I own land for several reasons, letting everyone on it is not on the list . Huge liability risks, wrecks the hunting. I mean it’s CRP way off the road. They can’t get to it anyway . Moot point—zero interest !

 

[JBAGS]

No holes really because you can't get blood out of a turnip. If you have seen those properties they get to stay in. I've stayed in better places in 3rd world countries. If you want to eat the food they get to use, sure. I'd rather eat my cattle from the feed lot

What I'm saying is most of those people don't have a pot to piss in or are in hard times...no "investments" per day. So your statement is comparing apples to oranges. Those that are buying land...is an investment. And you have other sources of income to do so. The government doesn't buy me gold coins...or...does it?

I knew this ruffle the feathers of the landowners that "rely" on the government welfare dollars to offset the cost of purchasing ground. If the government took it away would you be able to keep your dream of owning ground?

Communism is a bit far stretch. Hopefully you have had the opportunity to be in a communistic society because if you have...I think this statement would be different. We bit different.

But then again...who's the puppet and who's the puppet master. If government is involved... you are under the government microscope. And at their "requirements".

Land is an investment, sure, and the buyer had put a lot of money down to own it. $5000 CRP payment, as in Hardwood's case covers the tax with a little leftover. You are calling it the govt. paying for the land is way off.
CRP is the govt's way of keeping some acres in what they want it to be and offer the landowner some rent for it.

 

[JNRBRONC]

No that’s not what I said. If I have to let everyone hunt on my land it defeats the purpose! That’s public land ? I could just hunt public …

I own land for several reasons, letting everyone on it is not on the list . Huge liability risks, wrecks the hunting. I mean it’s CRP way off the road. They can’t get to it anyway . Moot point—zero interest !

Iowa law protects the landowner from liability IF no fees are charged to hunt. Lawyers and health insurance types will still try to sue to recoup $. Don’t care to hire lawyers to defend baseless claims.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hardwood11]

I think walk-in programs are good. They offer some type of liability protection . It’s suited more for pheasant/duck hunting… or large chunks out west ?

If a guy has a 160 acre block of CRP in Iowa and wants to offer public walk in—I’m all for it !

As an avid hunter I’d pass on CRP if public hunting was required. It would mostly be no hunters that sign up for walk in access .

 

[booneriverbucks]

Can of worms! can’t cherry pick subsidies to keep/eliminate.. kind of an all or nothing type of thing. If not, the government/ donor class is just picking winners and losers.

 

[Muskrat24]

No holes really because you can't get blood out of a turnip. If you have seen those properties they get to stay in. I've stayed in better places in 3rd world countries. If you want to eat the food they get to use, sure. I'd rather eat my cattle from the feed lot

What I'm saying is most of those people don't have a pot to piss in or are in hard times...no "investments" per day. So your statement is comparing apples to oranges. Those that are buying land...is an investment. And you have other sources of income to do so. The government doesn't buy me gold coins...or...does it?

I knew this ruffle the feathers of the landowners that "rely" on the government welfare dollars to offset the cost of purchasing ground. If the government took it away would you be able to keep your dream of owning ground?

Communism is a bit far stretch. Hopefully you have had the opportunity to be in a communistic society because if you have...I think this statement would be different. We bit different.

But then again...who's the puppet and who's the puppet master. If government is involved... you are under the government microscope. And at their "requirements".

Not picking fights but want readers here to realize how many government tax $ go to subsidize federal crop insurance. I’d be willing to bet that average farmer Gov subsidy is far more than the average CRP payment earned and far more acres subsidized. So should all crop acres subsidized by federal crop insurance programs also be public hunting?? Quick Google search said $1.77 billion for CRP and $12 billion for crop insurance. I’m a lender and can tell you which one has more impact to increasing land values and destruction of habitat, soil erosion and water quality issues….

 

[Slick]

The part I am not understanding is the Government did pass a 2025 budget on April 10th which included a 1 year extension of the 2018 farm bill. On the surface I would think at that point funds would become available for CRP. Maybe they are working through the reconciliation process?

 

[150 Class]

Don’t forget that the majority of the farm bill funding goes towards SNAP (food benefits for low income families). The other smaller parts of the bill go towards crop insurance, conservation, and other parts of the bill.

 

[JBAGS]

Don’t forget that the majority of the farm bill funding goes towards SNAP (food benefits for low income families). The other smaller parts of the bill go towards crop insurance, conservation, and other parts of the bill.

Right...like 80% of it, which is pure insanity. Talk about a program that needs a major overhaul

 

[IowaBowHunter1983]

 

[Hardwood11]

There’s an article in the Outdoor News (Minnesota) about conservation programs . The article states Trumps budget outline has a cut to the USDA by 18%.

The biggest concern was funding for the NRCS (mainly technical assistance) could be cut by $754 million.

The bottom of the article states “cut will not impact commodity programs, most conservation programs, crop insurance & SNAP”

So basically it’s saying CRP will exist, but might be cut back …

 

[Sligh1]

As high up the food chain to Trump as I’ve ever got …. This is what I heard. This isn’t coffee shop talk with farmers…. This was very high up the chain. & with this source being close & pretty specific… it doesn’t mean this is what will pass or what will be negotiated in the end. This is the 2nd convo I’ve had & some is a repeat but this is what I gleaned…. Like or not - not the point. This COULD be a possibility…. Could be way off but this is almost exactly what was described as Trumps goal from best & closest source I’ve ever spoken with…
In a nutshell loosely summarizing some points that were discussed….
1) there’s a desire to cut/end all CRP contracts if you do not make the majority of your living from Ag (schedule F). They want to end the “investors” who enroll CRP & only keep it for farmers. This could mean termination of contracts the way I took it. (My GUESS or gut on how it COULD play out after negotiations….. any new contracts will be ones impacted & will be for farmers only. I’d bet a nickel they don’t terminate current contracts but who knows).
2) $ for wetlands that result in cleaner water. Not the
“Duck hunting club” style wrp type things. $ will be bolstered/enhanced for wetlands conservation activities that directly result in cleaner water.
3) this one will sound insane but i assure you… this is a very real desire/plan & this is in play the way I understand it….. they want more $ for forests. Planting hardwoods. Converting junk into “good trees”. WHY you might ask?? (Which is exactly what I did, I said “why”???)….. so, within 30-100 years we will be completely sustainable for our own timber & need to import 0. Actually export some. This is a direct long term plan to further not need to import from CANADA. The same way we want to be free from oil imports- Trump admin wants us free from timber imports. He/they are seriously planning 30-100 years out which, if done, is brilliant.

That’s the meat & potatoes. I could envision massive changes to CRP …. Diverting funds to water & timber…. & I get it- there’s some winners & losers here…. Just conveying what i heard from as reliable & close a source as i can get. They were not shy about it & it sounds like most in DC that are debating the USDA/nrcs stuff ahead are discussing all this now. Maybe it doesnt pass or what gets negotiated is totally different but I suspect this is pretty accurate for the TARGET they want right now. 2 cents…. Take it for what it’s worth.