CRP grazing/haying apparently on hold

[Jogeephus]

Thanks for clearing my questions up and pardon my ignorance. I'm sure the nay-sayers carefully picked the judge before bringing suit. I can only imagine how hard it is to be short on grazing and see the solution right across the fence. Good luck to those affected.

 

[ND Angus]

WOW this thing is huge up here in ND!! These ranchers are PO'd!!!!!!!

 

[klintdog]

If this hold continues, there's a good chance it's going to put us out of business. With the drought conditions in SW North Dakota right now, we're getting less than half of the hay we're goign to need to even barely make it through the winter. Our pastures have hardly any grass left in them, and the ones that do have grass don't have any water. Since the Farm Bill didn't make it through the senate and house in time, hardly anyone has signed up for NAP coverage on their hay and forage, which means there might not be a disaster aid program coming. In short, my family and hundreds of others across the state were relying on these CRP acres to open so that we might be able to salvage a bit more hay than we normally do. As ND Angus said, the standard CRP contract allows us to cut 33% of our CRP acres per year, in exchange for forfeiting 25% of our payment. The program this year was to cut 50% of the acres.

In short, if I have to choose between selling all of my cattle and giving up my livelihood so a few grouse and pheasants have a place to live, I think the birds are going to have to find a new place to call home.

 

[Jogeephus]

In short, if I have to choose between selling all of my cattle and giving up my livelihood so a few grouse and pheasants have a place to live, I think the birds are going to have to find a new place to call home.

I hate to hear that and empathize with you. We have a similar conflict with a bird here. Used to we had several colonies and we would work around them and they prospered and thrived alongside us. Rules and regulations made this impossible. Something had to go and sadly they did.

Just my opinion, but it appears to me CRP is no longer a conservation program but an environmental program. I don't like what it has morphed into. I discourage everyone I know from signing up for it. While the original intent may have been sound I do not think it is anymore.

 

[klintdog]

The next two years are going to be very interesting for the program in our area. There are a lot of very unhappy people right now since this court case came along. The other issue here is that the average per acre payment is between $22 and $50 per acre. On our land, we receive $25/acre for our CRP land, which was good when my grandfather enrolled 13 years ago and the economy wasn't as strong. Cash rent was $20 an acre and the gov't gave you $25 instead. Right now, that same land is still getting $25/acre, but cash rent is up to $35. When you get to the east side of ND, it gets much worse. CRP payments are $50/acre, but cash rent is now up to $150/acre. I don't foresee a lot of acres being reenrolled if the program continues down it's current path.

 

[Jogeephus]

Around here, cash rent is anywhere from $35 - $150 per acre. Demographics is really dictating who enrolls in CRP. Most people I know who are considering CRP are heirs to the land and have no attachment to agriculture. Many, it appears, don't like the idea of someone making money off their land and feel it more important to sign up for CRP so they can do their part in the restoration of the longleaf/wiregrass ecosystem. (CRP enrollees here must plant longleaf and native warm season grasses) The government's goal is to restore habitat such as this.

The irony here is that the main reason for the demise in this ecosystem was brought about by the death tax. Unlike people who have oil or coal on their property and are taxed at the time of removal, timber is taxed at death and you only have six months to come up with the taxes. So it is rather naive to think that the CRP program will fulfill its ultimate goal since most enrollees are over the age of 40 and stands like this take years to establish. Additionally, the longleaf ecosystem is a fire ecosystem and requires frequent burns to encourage the growth of the desired grasses. I seriously doubt many of the enrollees have the backbone or the knowledge to burn the woods given the litigious nature of the society our court system has created.

Its also ironic that one government agency will give a good stewardship award to a forest like the one in the picture and another agency will come along and say you must destroy it so we can fund programs such as the CRP. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[somn]

http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestal ... 96839BE868

 

[john250]

Around here, cash rent is anywhere from $35 - $150 per acre. Demographics is really dictating who enrolls in CRP. Most people I know who are considering CRP are heirs to the land and have no attachment to agriculture. Many, it appears, don't like the idea of someone making money off their land and feel it more important to sign up for CRP so they can do their part in the restoration of the longleaf/wiregrass ecosystem. (CRP enrollees here must plant longleaf and native warm season grasses) The government's goal is to restore habitat such as this.


The irony here is that the main reason for the demise in this ecosystem was brought about by the death tax. Unlike people who have oil or coal on their property and are taxed at the time of removal, timber is taxed at death and you only have six months to come up with the taxes. So it is rather naive to think that the CRP program will fulfill its ultimate goal since most enrollees are over the age of 40 and stands like this take years to establish. Additionally, the longleaf ecosystem is a fire ecosystem and requires frequent burns to encourage the growth of the desired grasses. I seriously doubt many of the enrollees have the backbone or the knowledge to burn the woods given the litigious nature of the society our court system has created.

Its also ironic that one government agency will give a good stewardship award to a forest like the one in the picture and another agency will come along and say you must destroy it so we can fund programs such as the CRP. Makes perfect sense to me.

Your arguments are persuasive. I'll add a link showing an even greater injustice, if you follow the NFL.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1216174 ... itorialPag

Just kidding about the "greater" injustice. Forests (and fence posts) mean more to me than Football. Forestry has enough grief with the environmentalists. Y'all shouldn't have issues with tax policy.

The "old" Soil Conservation Service had a policy of increasing the quality of our resources while preserving them. They encouraged use, not misuse. And not retirement. Today, the USDA is a political football, and now conservation projects go largely to retirement of land from production. I think that is a wrong-headed direction. But that's just me.

 

[Jogeephus]

That's interesting John I can see some similarities in how the tax treatment is detrimental. I've been accused of being a timbe beast before but in actuality I love trees. Probably have hugged more than any environmentalist ever thought about. It just seems wrong to treat timber this way then to have "government incentives" to encourage reforestation. If they were at all serious about the environment all they would have to do is treat timber as they do any other resource and tax it when it is harvested. Polls have shown that the vast majority of landowners own timber for reasons other than income. So could you imagine what our forests would look like if they didn't make you cut it? Its just a shame. That's all I can say.