lawnviewfarm
Well-known member
According to the this article in the Seattle Times, CRP grazing and haying appears to be on hold for now.
--Marc
--Marc
CRP grazing/haying apparently on hold
- Thread starter lawnviewfarm
- Start date
Help Support CattleToday:
BTRANCH
Well-known member
I agree they enrolled their acreage and should stick it out. BUT, if they do graze or hay those acres, they should forfeit any payments and not be allowed to double dip.
I'm throwing in the bs flag on that one. I don't know about the sage grouse, but they evidently don't know about the bob white quail and ring necked pheasants. Here on our property the Ohio DNR guys trap quail from some of our pastures and release them in areas they're trying to repopulate. We also have acreage that belongs to m-i-l in the CRP. The DNR guys have never seen a quail on that place, 13 miles away from our place.
This situation stinks! We didn't count on making hay from the CRP because it would have been crap by the time it was released and our hay is producing well this year. But if we hit a drought again for the next 5 months then that crap would beat snowballs. I think that judge is in the back pocket of the 'environmentalists'.
mnmtranching
Well-known member
Sage Grouse may venture into CRP land, but their habitat is Sage Brush, no sage in CRP fields.
If the price of corn stays high (and will) look for CRP land owners in corn country to be able to early withdraw without penalties. And all CRP lands will be eligible to follow.
I guess it will benefit the cattle industry, but I think it stinks.
If the price of corn stays high (and will) look for CRP land owners in corn country to be able to early withdraw without penalties. And all CRP lands will be eligible to follow.
I guess it will benefit the cattle industry, but I think it stinks.
Wild Cattle
Well-known member
many ranchers here have already fenced, set up water and gathered and turned out cattle. There has been much money waisted if the grazing is stoped.
This is a short term grazing program that was to end in November. These acers were not coming out of CRP. Grazing is good for these CRP tracts, it reduces the fire danges, and the nesting season is over. No Sage Grouse in west Texas?????
Its just a case of the left trying to cause trouble for farmers and ranchers.....they will get their due sooner or later, I hope.
Paul T
This is a short term grazing program that was to end in November. These acers were not coming out of CRP. Grazing is good for these CRP tracts, it reduces the fire danges, and the nesting season is over. No Sage Grouse in west Texas?????
Its just a case of the left trying to cause trouble for farmers and ranchers.....they will get their due sooner or later, I hope.
Paul T
Jogeephus
Well-known member
Why would someone enroll their land in CRP anyhow? Is it for the money? If so, aren't they aware that they are giving up for this money? Seems to me they sold their rights to graze or whatever to the government and as long as the gov't fullfills their end of the deal the landowner needs to fullfill his end of the bargain. Maybe next time they have an enrollement the landowners will be looking for the stick rather than looking at the sugar on the carrot. JMO
If this holds up in court it will be really bad for all aspects of agriculture. Next they will be getting Federal judges to halt all grazing on all acres. They will be halting row crop farming on all acres the list could go on and on. Those are rented acres how a judge can tell the renter what he can or cannot do with the land is just beyond me. I sure don't want a judge telling me I cannot graze cattle on pastures I rented. I don't want a judge telling me I can't harvest hay from any field that I rented.
Jogeephus
Well-known member
Unless I'm missing something Somm, the gov't is the rentor. They bought these people's rights to graze their own property. Would be the same if I rented it from you. It wouldn't be right for you to put your stock on it after I paid you rent for it. Same thing is applying here. That's why I don't like CRP contracts or any long term contract that is going to tie my hands on what I can do with my land cause I don't know what's going to happen next week not to mention 10 years from now. The way I see it, this same principle applies here as to the draft dodgers. If you are going to enter into an agreement your word should be good in both good and bad times. If its not, don't sign a contract.
You are absolutly correct and it is the USDA as the RENTER who is now saying anyone who wants can pay me a $75 fee per tract and graze it or hay 50% of it. They are now subleasing it to everyone.Jogeephus":1m2iuxg0 said:
It would be right if you the renter gave me permission to do it just as the USDA as the renter has given others permission to graze their rented acres. Now I am very certain no Wildlife Federation should be able to interfere with any lease agreement between 2 groups in which they are not a party involved. You will never see an end to the lawsuits against agriculture by wildlife and peta people if this deal wins in court.Jogeephus":1m2iuxg0 said:
Jogeephus
Well-known member
Thanks for clearing that up. So if I had 400 acres in CRP and they were paying me $50/acre I could give them $75 and graze or hay 50% of the land and keep the money too or would I have to forfeit the payment or is it prorated? (BTW, I got no problem with any cattlemen grazing CRP land and seriously doubt any sage grouse or any other bird is nesting this time of year. I'm just asking out of curiousity)
Yep keep the whole thing it is none of your business as the landowner what the renter wants to do with the property as long as they pay the rent they agreed to and have not violated any of the terms of the contract.Jogeephus":2vz7u1jj said:
Jogeephus
Well-known member
So they are allowing people other than the landowner to run cattle on it? I was thinking the landowner was paying the money and then they could run their cattle on it but I guess it makes no difference. Of course if I was the landowner I would want first option to rent it back but this wouldn't really float in the private sector so I guess it really shouldn't apply hear either.
1982vett
Well-known member
Just a thought. To sub-let a property a renter usually has to have permission of the owner unless the right is granted in the original lease.
Jogeephus
Well-known member
This is interesting to me as our CRP contracts deal mainly with tree planting fields and there won't be much grazing under that. There was a push a while back by some folks trying to force the gov't to open enrollee's lands up for hunters and recreationists since the gov't is "leasing the land" and has rights to it. If the gov't can let others graze or hay your property I don't see what is stopping them from opening the land up to hunters or bird watchers. Scary thought and is again another example of why I don't eat carrots with sugar on them.
Weaver
Well-known member
The govt. isn't doing the sub leasing, they are just giving the landowner the option of leasing the ground out to anyone the landowner desires if the landowner doesn't want to use it themself. I was hoping to both graze and lease some crp ground from one of our landlords, but a wrench has just been thrown into my plans.
an excerpt from the letter sent to the District Judge:
"A penalty-free early release of the magnitude you are considering-millions of acres-would deliver a devastating blow to the nation's soil, water, and wildlife habitat, and significantly increase global warming," said the letter.
"Because most CRP lands are marginal for cropping, even if all CRP acres were brought back into commodity production, the impact on aggregate commodity supplies and prices would be modest… We urge you to protect the taxpayers' investment in soil quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat and not allow landowners to leave CRP contracts early without fully reimbursing the Treasury for the taxpayer-funded investment in those lands."
could someone explain this:
other than voicing their opposition to everything good- what purpose does this blockage serve when under the CRP Program, every year up to 1/3 of all CRP acres are able to be hayed or grazed?a landowner can buy-back 1/3 of their contracted acres each year, or all of their contracted acres every 3 years at a rate of 25% of the contract payment amount.
has there been any significant studies done by these environmentalist groups that proves haying or grazing CRP acres is a detriment to our nation's soil, water and wildlife, and significantly increases global warming? (when done according to USDA guidelines)
what does bringing CRP acres back into commodity production have anything to do with haying or grazing?landowners can't plant corn or any other row crops on CRP acreages. if the landowner want to row crop those acres, he/she has to pay back the entire amount of payments recieved on those acres for the term of the contract to date.
who would be leaving CRP contracts early under this modification? best i can tell, the landowner is still under contract with the USDA/FSA. this modification was only intended to be for this year. next year things go back to normal.
Somn - i can't find anywhere where anyone other than the landowner would have the option to buy back his/her contract. i believe you stated than anyone could buy back contracts for their own use. where's this coming from - i'd like to see it.
IMO, the Judge who made this decision should be banned from the judicial system. it is evident that these environmentalists have him in their hip pocket. i think it is amazing that a judge from the west coast has the gall to make a decision which affects people over our whole nation without consulting his constituency located in other parts of the country. just another example of how our nation is letting the loudmouths run things - and just another judge who woke up one morning and decided to be a congressmen instead of a judge.
(interpret the law, not make the law)
ROB
"A penalty-free early release of the magnitude you are considering-millions of acres-would deliver a devastating blow to the nation's soil, water, and wildlife habitat, and significantly increase global warming," said the letter.
"Because most CRP lands are marginal for cropping, even if all CRP acres were brought back into commodity production, the impact on aggregate commodity supplies and prices would be modest… We urge you to protect the taxpayers' investment in soil quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat and not allow landowners to leave CRP contracts early without fully reimbursing the Treasury for the taxpayer-funded investment in those lands."
could someone explain this:
other than voicing their opposition to everything good- what purpose does this blockage serve when under the CRP Program, every year up to 1/3 of all CRP acres are able to be hayed or grazed?a landowner can buy-back 1/3 of their contracted acres each year, or all of their contracted acres every 3 years at a rate of 25% of the contract payment amount.
has there been any significant studies done by these environmentalist groups that proves haying or grazing CRP acres is a detriment to our nation's soil, water and wildlife, and significantly increases global warming? (when done according to USDA guidelines)
what does bringing CRP acres back into commodity production have anything to do with haying or grazing?landowners can't plant corn or any other row crops on CRP acreages. if the landowner want to row crop those acres, he/she has to pay back the entire amount of payments recieved on those acres for the term of the contract to date.
who would be leaving CRP contracts early under this modification? best i can tell, the landowner is still under contract with the USDA/FSA. this modification was only intended to be for this year. next year things go back to normal.
Somn - i can't find anywhere where anyone other than the landowner would have the option to buy back his/her contract. i believe you stated than anyone could buy back contracts for their own use. where's this coming from - i'd like to see it.
IMO, the Judge who made this decision should be banned from the judicial system. it is evident that these environmentalists have him in their hip pocket. i think it is amazing that a judge from the west coast has the gall to make a decision which affects people over our whole nation without consulting his constituency located in other parts of the country. just another example of how our nation is letting the loudmouths run things - and just another judge who woke up one morning and decided to be a congressmen instead of a judge.
(interpret the law, not make the law)ROB
ND Angus
Well-known member
In ND this is a huge issue. There are ranchers who are now moving cattle off CRP and taking them to the sale barn because there is no place else to put them because of the drought. ND Stockmans Assocation was on the radio yestertday warning the hunting groups here in ND of the HUGE down fall of this. In ND you can hunt anywhere you want with out permission as long as the land is not posted. I stopped in to the local hardware store and they are sold out of "no hunting" signs and have cases of them on order.
We are not asking to hay this land every year , just during drought conditions like we have now. By not letting the ranchers hay this we are putting our food supply second to a few nesting birds. Landowners in this area are looking to get out of the CRP program as soon as they can . They want nothing to do with NWF , Game and Fish, and the Fish and Wildlife.
During this drought the farmers will get crop insurance and a diaster payment . The rancher will get nothing. Why not let them hay CRP ground? It would be cheaper for all tax payers to let them has as to give them a payment of some sort.
We are not asking to hay this land every year , just during drought conditions like we have now. By not letting the ranchers hay this we are putting our food supply second to a few nesting birds. Landowners in this area are looking to get out of the CRP program as soon as they can . They want nothing to do with NWF , Game and Fish, and the Fish and Wildlife.
During this drought the farmers will get crop insurance and a diaster payment . The rancher will get nothing. Why not let them hay CRP ground? It would be cheaper for all tax payers to let them has as to give them a payment of some sort.
