Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

CRP & Leasing?

blake

blake

Life Member
One can hardly dispute that the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been good for promoting wildlife habitat. All forms of wildlife benefit from this program.

With the increase in corn and soy bean prices a good deal of land enrolled in the CRP may come out and be farmed for cash crops. The impact that this will have on wildlife remains to be seen.

I am already seeing this happen on several of the properties that I hunt. Several large tracts of CRP were placed back into crop production recently and the wildlife population seems to have dropped off. I can only assume that the wildlife simply relocated.

I recently had an interesting discussion with several fellow bowhunters re: their opinions on the CRP ground, leasing, and hunting.

So here is the question:

Should property owners receiving government funding for their properties enrolled in the CRP be allowed to lease it for hunting?
 
absolutely 'YES' its their property still, the gov't does not own it! so the farmer should be allow to do with his propery as he sees fit!
 
I just don't see spending tax dollars on CRP, and then allowing leasing. I also believe that it should NOT be made open public hunting either, it's a fine line we walk when it comes to personal property, but I just can't see paying tax dollars for CRP land to be leased out. Thats just my two cents worth, but if the law allows to double dip on your proprty then go ahead, just don't tell me how great a job you do for wildlife,QDM because I will always stand firm that it's big antlers, and big money that pushes leasing.
 
I couldn't really decide on any of the options to vote on.

A similar question that could be asked "Should you be able to buy a Resident ELK license in CO with the stipulation that you are only allowed to hunt FEDERAL land"

Tough questions, that I dont see as cut and dry, when it comes to answering them. A solid argument could be made both ways IMO.

One thing is for certain, CRP is a great thing for everyone, not just the landowner. Though its everyones tax dollars paying the land owner, we all recieve an increase in game populations, better water quality, less erosion...... and on and on.
 
I think they should be able to do with it as they please. They get paid not to plant cash crops not to be told what they may or may not do other than that. I'd like to see you tell a landowner that is CRP is open to the public. Them old farmers are a frisky bunch. It's there land to do with what they want. Many of the farms have probably been in the families for many years and have earned that right with the rise and fall of farming there land for years, decades and centuries. Besides the fact that they own the land.
 
I dont see the big deal in spending tax dollars for CRP and then letting someone lease out that land.... Whether, the land was leased out after being put into CRP or not doesn't change anything.. The tax dollars still paid for it and the general public and wildlife all around it is still benefitting from it...So, why not lease it out and make a few bucks. There are a lot worse other things to worry about tax dollars being spent on.
 
bowstring said:
I think they should be able to do with it as they please. They get paid not to plant cash crops not to be told what they may or may not do other than that.
Click to expand...

Not so fast; unless the CRP contract has changed since I last read one, the landowner does indeed have many limits on what he can do with the land.
A very partial list from memory:
Can't hold fairs on the ground.
Can't rent for camping.
Can't operate an airstrip (that one killed me because CRP was targeted for HEL and who wants to land a plane on a hillside).


These (and other restrictions) prevent the landowner from making money outside the CRP payments. Leasing seemed to be the only option for added income. Granted, hunting probably has the least amount of environmental impact compared to some of the other prohibited uses.

Also, the landowner has to get permission to spray/mow during certain times of the year. He is restricted to what he can/can't plant due to his "management plan".



On the topic of whether they should be able to lease or not, I'm undecided. I'm still bitter about loosing access to tons of CRP pheasant hunting ground in the mid-80's to a "pay-to-play" operation in the Williamsburg/Parnell area. The up side of that bitterness is that it solidified my desire to acquire my own hunting ground. :way:
 
JNRBRONC The up side of that bitterness is that it solidified my desire to acquire my own hunting ground. :way: [/quote said:
through leasing or owning??
Click to expand...
 
If you choose to receive State $$$ (read: MY/Our tax dollars) to improve habitat for a State owned resource, you should NOT be allowed to lease your land for your own profit. The CRP program was NOT intended to create a privately owned industry of outfitters/lessors or anything of the like. It was created to improve the quality of our wildlife for all to enjoy.

If you want to make a profit off your land, more power to you. Plant your own grasses at your own expense and lease away to your hearts content. Why should WE have to subsidize YOUR profit? CRP should never have become an entitlement program for deep pocket hunters and outfitters, period. Now if you want to employ a couple hundred people with good paying jobs, and effectively pump money back into your local economy by attracting a workforce that pays taxes and buys goods, that's one thing. But the fact of the matter is, these outfitters or lessors are not doing anything of the like, they are simply making a tidy profit at our expense.

/soapbox off
 
One way I look at all of this are the floods from this year. Had most of Iowa not been bare soil and tiled fields, rather, more prarie and CRP, there would have been a lot more vegetation to help soak up the excess rain water and there wouldn't have been as much runoff into the streams and rivers. Part of the CRP program is to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation in streams and lakes. IMO, I would rather have my tax dollars spent on more CRP that is contributing to wildlife and runoff reduction and have someone lease it out than have it spent on millions of dollars of damage to homes and property from floods that might have been preveneted had more of Iowa been covered in vegetation. With that said.. I know it was just a freak year of precipitation, so I dont think there is anything that could have prevented it all, but, I do believe it could have helped some.
 
Good discussion guys!

I am sure there are more of you out there with an opinion on this subject.

We would like to hear from you.
 
I agree with leasing CRP. Lets face it, land prices are getting to be pretty rediculous. Some of the best hunting grounds give back little to no income. So I say if you can double up on CRP income and a short term lease to help pay the bankman I'd say go for it. Times are tough and it's becoming a rich man's game. If that is the only way you can afford to own land then I'd say go for it.
 
Why should WE have to subsidize YOUR profit?
Click to expand...

Agreed

Times are tough and it's becoming a rich man's game.
Click to expand...

And it's a bit irritating that our taxes are paying for someones leased playground. It wasn't meant to be that way, they need to make some new rules as far as I'm concerned.
 
Regular Joe goes out an buys 100 acres of tillable ground. He decides to have it all put into CRP.. CRP that just so happens to be helping provide cover for all of the pheasants/deer, etc. for everyone on the otherside of the fence who's too stubborn to take advantage of the program whose fields are bare dirt after fall harvest and chiseling and providing nothing for wildlife or anybody 6 months out of the year. Now.. Regular Joe decides.. "Hey, I've got someone who will pay me some money to lease my land for hunting.. so, what the hell.. might as well take advantage of the extra profit."
I just dont see what there is to complain about this. Yes.. tax dollars were spent to put this land into CRP... that is allowing ppl to utilize it for hunting... and yes.. the same money is being utilized to put ground into CRP for landowners who dont allow any hunting/leasing what-so-ever on their property.. so What's The Difference if someone is leasing it out.. THE LAND IS PUT INTO CRP...AND YOUR TAX DOLLARS ARE PAYING FOR IT PERIOD... People dont like it because their tax money is being spent on CRP for other ppl to lease out to ppl who can further utilize it better than the farmer... but they are okay with their tax money being spent on CRP that just sit's there and nobody can use it for anything because a farmer wont allow hunting..... Either way.. the person with the CRP is still collecting that check.. there is a budget for the money put into CRP funds and it WILL get used.
Lets say the budget is $1000000 (just to make it easy). X amount of landowners apply for CRP. X amount of landowners receive CRP. 100% of the budget will be used on CRP or other conservation/wildlife funds.... Did your taxes go up because someone is leasing out their CRP? Even better, Did your taxes go down because someone wasn't leasing it out....No and NO. Fact is... Nobody is affected by someone leasing out their CRP or not, except for the opportunistic person who isn't afraid to make an extra buck that didn't cost any body jack s*** extra than what they were paying anyway.
 
but they are okay with their tax money being spent on CRP that just sit's there and nobody can use it for anything because a farmer wont allow hunting
Click to expand...

It is then in essance a refuge. I can live with my taxes creating a refuge vs. an excluse playground that is rented out to the highest bidder.

If ya don't mind so much, send me a portion of your tax return to help fund an archery retail I'd like to start up. I'll send ya a catalog so you can buy somethin later on.....
 
Airassault------thanks to you and your fellow troops we all still have the great right in this county to not agree, but back to the topic at hand.
whether your farming kids, or crops once you take a hand out from the great people of this nation then you also take on the restrictions that comes with it. So just because you own land you do give up some rights of ownership to the good old USA plain and simple.
 
Yea.... It can go both ways I suppose.. Our government takes and gives as it pleases... unfortunately less of the latter. Oh well.. I was just trying to stir the pot a little.. hehe..I mean.. isn't what these polls are for ;) it gets kinda boring over here..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom