Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Brad Eden

      TO THOSE REGISTERING FOR MEMBERSHIP ON UJ   01/06/2018

      To the Guests who have decided to register for Membership. PLEASE read Terms of Service, not just checking it off. This is covered there: Add more info than just "hunting" or "Upland hunting" or "birds" or "outdoors" or similar nebulous terms in the required INTERESTS field. Despite this Boards strong spam filtering function, some Spam registrations do sneak through. I need an inkling that you are a human being not a Spam Bot tagging onto key words. Also please do not use a business name as your User Name. Thank you.
OceanRoamer

CRP-2018 Farm Bill

Recommended Posts

dogrunner

PF has been in Washington pushing for more I hope they are successful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quailguy

$20 trillion deficit,  $35 billion plus up for military in 2018 with Putin on one flank, Kim Jong (Fat) Un on the other and Iran and ISIS and al Qaeda in the middle. Special opns has been fighting non stop since 9/11 and they are getting worn out. No one else is going to carry that load but US. And the US military needs at least twice that $35 billion plus up next year just to keep going and buy a few new pieces of equipment. 

Every construction labor union and company can't wait for that $1 trillion federal infrastructure project and there are millions of votes in that.

No one can afford Obamacare and now we are trying to replace that with Trumpcare but keep funding  the millions of people with pre existing conditions. Hell you can't go to the hospital for a gall bladder ( or other simple) procedure without it costing at least $10K +. That pre existing conditions thing will cost many $$ billions every year. The "must spend" list is long and I bet CRP is nowhere near to being on it.

 

The states are sure not going to pay for CRP; most of them are busy plotting how to steal what little Pittman-Robertson or other hunting/fishing $$ they can get their hands on.

 

In almost every state the active hunting and fishing population is shrinking and the politicians don't see enough votes there to mess with.

 Sorry, but that is how I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KerryLuft

Sadly, quailguy is correct.  Waterfowl hunters dropped under 1 million in 2015 despite a (supposed) record number of ducks.  We are becoming less and less important as a constituent bloc.  God bless PF and their comrades, they're fighting the good fight, but there isn't much appetite for more spending for conservation on either the state or federal levels.

 

We as the hunting community have always been an ancillary beneficiary of CRP.  It was designed to protect highly erodable soils and other vulnerable lands; the fact that it was great for upland birds was a happy bonus.  Arguing for the continuation or expansion of CRP based on its benefits to hunting is a non-starter; we must show that it's the right move for agriculture and the taxpayer.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quailguy
1 hour ago, KerryLuft said:

We as the hunting community have always been an ancillary beneficiary of CRP.  It was designed to protect highly erodable soils and other vulnerable lands; the fact that it was great for upland birds was a happy bonus.  Arguing for the continuation or expansion of CRP based on its benefits to hunting is a non-starter; we must show that it's the right move for agriculture and the taxpayer.

 

 

Absolutely correct IMHO. Plus, we need big AG arguing for a plus up in CRP. That would really help. If I remember correctly CRP is still authorized at 28 M acres. The problem guys in SD tell me is that CRP reimbursement rates per acre have been sneakily cut in half. The lower totals are simply not enough to get much participation in many places. The county in SD I hunted in for years used to have tens of thousands of acres of CRP.  In 2017 there were NO, zero, acres of CRP in that county. I shot a pick up truck load of pheasants and ducks there, but I doubt I'll go there again.

 

I just don't see a good outcome so far as we are concerned. Very sad deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OceanRoamer

Each of us will have our own reasons for supporting the CRP. Big Ag for the farm income effects, conservationists for the "soil preserving" aspects of it, and sportsmen for the improved hunting. The stuff of coalitions.

 

CRP expansion - either in acreage and/or reimbursement rates - seems to lag grain price movements by a few years and is inversely correlated...which is what one would expect as farmers and the politicians that represent them work through the opportunity cost calculations.

 

My point in the original post was to highlight the likelihood of a CRP expansion based on my reading of the trends outlined in the associated chart.

 

FWIW regarding the discussion of the current level of debt and competing spending priorities...I'm more concerned with the "denominator" in such calculations (i.e. the GDP) than I am with the "numerator" (i.e. the debt).  GDP growth - a proxy for the overall economy, while it could be better, hasn't been all that bad over the last several years at approx 2%.

 

The decline in the # of hunters is not totally unexpected as my Baby Boomer generation ages out. Yes, FWS survey numbers show a decline, but I would argue that this is offset by the fact that, as a group, hunters are better organized politically than they've ever been...witness the recent political blowback earlier this year against public land transfers. Additionally, Ive noted more cultural references recently positing hunting as a more ethical approach to meat eating. Earlier discussions on this very board mention hunting in the context of the "eating locally" movement. All in all, I'm optimistic regarding the future of hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo

Uncle Sam could spend far less on CRP per acre than on crop loss insurance, prevented planting, revenue insurance, disaster programs, etc. 

 

Here's a good ND farmer who doesn't give a &@)%! about soil erosion because he's going to be paid for it. By the taxpayers.

DSC_3805

 

Same deal here. Saline soil in ND that would never raise a crop above input costs but qualifies for poor-me payments.

 

DSC_3913

 

These same gents will tell you they are good stewards of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quailguy
1 hour ago, Remo said:

Uncle Sam could spend far less on CRP per acre than on crop loss insurance, prevented planting, revenue insurance, disaster programs, etc. 

 

Here's a good ND farmer who doesn't give a &@)%! about soil erosion because he's going to paid for it. By the taxpayers.

 

Bingo. Framers with crop insurance can and do plant marginal/poor land and when the crop fails Uncle Sugar pays them the going rate for that crop per acre. The farmer pays 20% of that crop insurance and you and I pay the other 80%. It's a racket and is a big reason more land isn't in CRP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogrunner

That's one reason lots of it came out of CRP in the first place. Then they bitch about half there field getting flooded out like a lot of it did this weekend here with 2-3 inches of rain in a short period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas Big Dog

I heard today on NPR that Trump's 2018 budget does away with crop insurance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobman

It will be an interesting couple years, I hope the ethanol thing dies a much deserved death its another influence to the CRP issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quailguy
4 hours ago, bobman said:

It will be an interesting couple years, I hope the ethanol thing dies a much deserved death its another influence to the CRP issue

 

 

Agree completely. The entire thing makes no sense at all. If one believes that carbon is a problem, studies have shown that planting corn to make ethanol actually produces more carbon than using gasoline alone. Ethanol is less energy dense than gasoline so it takes more to run a motor. It makes no sense to use food to power vehicles when the USA is the single greatest produces of petroleum in the world. Plus all that blasted corn is an environmental nightmare re lost soil and water pollution. The entire idea is long past it's sell by date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo
17 hours ago, Kansas Big Dog said:

I heard today on NPR that Trump's 2018 budget does away with crop insurance. 

 

If that were the case there would be radical changes in mid-western land use. However I doubt many mid-west congressmen would go along. For them, farming is their bread and butter $$$$ when it comes to election time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406dn
1 hour ago, Remo said:

 

If that were the case there would be radical changes in mid-western land use. However I doubt many mid-west congressmen would go along. For them, farming is their bread and butter $$$$ when it comes to election time.

 

I will admit that there is much about crop insurance that I don't really have a grasp on but an article on it gave me a little pause. Part of the budget proposal is capping the subsidy at $40000 for paying for the premiums. Presently there is no cap. That in and of itself is a pretty nice leg up on running a business. I was unaware  just how much Uncle Sam picked up on the cost of crop insurance.

 

Here is a link to the article I read.

 

http://www.agriculture.com/news/business/budget-proposal-will-kill-crop-insurance-says-insurance-expert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy S

The new budget proposes cutting conservation spending by $5.7 billion, crop insurance by 36% with the fore mentioned $40,000 cap and  eliminating Harvest Price Option. Cutting SNAP by 25%, Slicing Agriculture Research Service by 25%, eliminate Rural Economic Development Program and the Agricultural Marketing Service, and require USDA to cut it's "discretionary budget" by $4.6 billion.

 

I don't see a renew or even a maintain CRP window in there anywhere.

 

I would guess that if even a moderation of this budget passes, there are going to be a lot of angry farmers and ranchers out there. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×