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.
Kansas Big Dog

CRP-30 year contracts or more.

Recommended Posts

Kansas Big Dog

I was just listening to All Things Considered on NPR and they had a spot on all the CRP in North Dakota that went away. Real interesting spot. Talked about CRP contracts should be 30 years, or a permanent easement for them to do any good. Anyone else hear or have any info? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogrunner

I seen that article on Yahoo today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogrunner

The short article was on NPR.org. 

IMG_1294.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KerryLuft

One of the issues with CRP from the landowner's point of view is the length of contract.  Going to longer terms isn't going to make the program any more popular -- and the money isn't there for permanent easement.

 

If we don't make conservation programs work for the private landowner, they're not going to work, period.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy S

 

.

4 hours ago, KerryLuft said:

One of the issues with CRP from the landowner's point of view is the length of the contract. Going to longer terms isn't going to make the program any more popular --and the money isn't there for permanent easement.

 

If we don't make conservation programs work for the private landowner, they're not going to work, period.

 

 

 

Making conservation programs work for the private landowner is'n all that difficult. Just get rid of the government programs that reward farmers for poor conservation practices.

 

If the government stopped their subsidies that make farming marginal land profitable, farmers wouldn't be tilling highly erodible soil. Every farmer used to have wasteland, not because his small equipment wouldn't reach into those corners, but because it just wasn't profitable to farm it. Today, the government, that most farmers love to hate, pays them handsome incentives to be poor stewards of the land, so then of course, those same farmers expect to be paid by the government to be good stewards of the land. (I didn't know that something as honorable as being a "good steward" was supposed to come after a financial incentive).

 

The old system of living and dying by the sword was good for wildlife and the environment. The problem today is that everyone who owns a tractor and land believes he has a right to earn a living with it, whether he can produce a product that the world can afford or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chukarman
On 6/14/2017 at 5:27 AM, Randy S said:

 

The old system of living and dying by the sword was good for wildlife and the environment. The problem today is that everyone who owns a tractor and land believes he has a right to earn a living with it, whether he can produce a product that the world can afford or not. 

 

...and he doesn't have that right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith E. Carlson

 

1 hour ago, Chukarman said:

 

...and he doesn't have that right?

Of course he/she has that right.

Also the right to go broke without help or interference from the taxpayers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chukarman
10 minutes ago, Keith E. Carlson said:

 

Of course he/she has that right.

Also the right to go broke without help or interference from the taxpayers.

 

I believe in market forces... they work most of the time. But what is implied is a huge change in capitalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy S

 

1 hour ago, Chukarman said:

 

I believe in market forces... they work most of the time. But what is implied is a huge change in capitalization.

 

Earning a living off your work isn't a "right". You only have a right to choose your work, or purchase it. My position is, just because you own property and a tractor, or a hammer and lumber, doesn't give you the right to earn a living. 

 

Today's farming programs are the "huge change" in capitalism. It's unduly kind to use a term less contentious than "welfare", when describing the benefits that our government guarantees to farmers.

 

I do not hate farmers and ranchers. Everyone that I've met has been friendly and honest in hand-shake business. I simply believe that they should benefit and suffer from market forces, just like every other established business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GraceinVA
49 minutes ago, Randy S said:

Today's farming programs are the "huge change" in capitalism. It's unduly kind to use a term less contentious than "welfare", when describing the benefits that our government guarantees to farmers.

I personally know some farmers here in VA that have put in a lot of corn over the last several years. They do this because its a guaranteed profit. If they have a good crop, then the profit comes from the market. If they have a bad crop, then the profit comes from the govt. So its win win for them, and they have built some very nice barns with some bad crops.

 

I don't have an opinion on the subject and I will add these guys are top notch guys. They farm a lot of acres, work hard, and the farm has been in the family nearly a century. They don't know anything other than farming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chukarman
2 hours ago, Randy S said:

Earning a living off your work isn't a "right". You only have a right to choose your work, or purchase it. My position is, just because you own property and a tractor, or a hammer and lumber, doesn't give you the right to earn a living. 

 

Today's farming programs are the "huge change" in capitalism. It's unduly kind to use a term less contentious than "welfare", when describing the benefits that our government guarantees to farmers.

 

I do not hate farmers and ranchers. Everyone that I've met has been friendly and honest in hand-shake business. I simply believe that they should benefit and suffer from market forces, just like every other established business.

 

They do not have a right to a LIVING, but they have the right to EARN a living -- by any legal means.

 

The farmers in California mostly seem to work in high-rise offices in Los Angeles. I'm damned if they have a RIGHT to any portion of my tax dollars. Most people in the USA seem to feel that they are entitled to whatever they can get... that's why we have all those high dollar lobbyists in Washington.

 

Farming is expensive. Without the current economic structure agricultural capitalization would have to change radically.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas Bound

I don't mind subsidizing food on our table but don't get me started about ethanol in our gas tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remo
On 6/15/2017 at 4:28 PM, Chukarman said:

 

They do not have a right to a LIVING, but they have the right to EARN a living -- by any legal means.

 

The farmers in California mostly seem to work in high-rise offices in Los Angeles. I'm damned if they have a RIGHT to any portion of my tax dollars. Most people in the USA seem to feel that they are entitled to whatever they can get... that's why we have all those high dollar lobbyists in Washington.

 

Farming is expensive. Without the current economic structure agricultural capitalization would have to change radically.

 

 

 You are right. The current no-fail system has built a whole entitled class in ag. The best plan I have seen, (which is unlikely to happen), is a graduated phase out of the subsidies. That way markets could readjust.

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

×