There are a large number of State and Federal Organizations that fund private landowners in the name of conservation. I would like to know what programs like this you are aware of? And what your opinion is of govt $ going to private landowners without any public access attached to it?
Reposting the first post: There are a large number of State and Federal Organizations that fund private landowners in the name of conservation. I would like to know what programs like this you are aware of? And what your opinion is of govt $ going to private landowners without any public access attached to it?
I know someone that gets paid by Wis to flail/brush hog part of his property and others. I always thought that seemed odd.
What’s your opinion?
CRP and CREP are probably the most common ones I can think of. I’m conflicted on the whole public use discussion. I think by simply having more of these acres in place benefits all who want to see more wildlife around.
After hearing on this site about some of the rivers and creeks in areas that get massive farm runoffs, I would think that most anglers would support some kind of buffer zone compensation to keep sediment and excess fertilizers out of the rivers.
Another one is a conservation easement. I know a farmer that put around 100 acres into one for 100 years and I believe it was a joint deal with DU and the gubment. It is unreal the amount of wildlife that brought in and supports. But it is not open to the public.
CRP and CREP are probably the most common ones I can think of. I’m conflicted on the whole public use discussion. I think by simply having more of these acres in place benefits all who want to see more wildlife around.
I receive funds as part of a CRP program and I utilize the Forestry programs. I selected to keep it private as I already have enough people here. However, to think that others don’t benefit is foolish. My CRP land is only one portion of what enhances the habitat and increases the populations of deer, birds, small game,…. I have no high fences and the deer, turkey, and so on are all free roaming. Do they frequent my land – yes. Do they live exclusively on my land – heck no. Over the last 10 years, people hunting the near by public land have shot more large mature bucks than what we have taken. More turkey have been shot on neighboring land than mine.
I trap intensely coyote, skunks, coon, and grinners. My work PLUS the little I receive in funds produce well suited nesting habitat for birds, birthing areas for deer, water tanks, additional land (not in programs) utilized for standing winter feed. Not all recipients invest back, but many do. The couple thousand I receive is easily burnt up in seed, fertilizer, fuel, equipment, maintenance, property taxes, income tax, wear/tear, and everything else I spend money on to give back.
Yes, I have the pleasure or watching more critters. I could kill a lot more if I needed to. In the last 10 years I find that I take much less and invest much more. So at the end of the day, the 20 or 30 people that might have been ON my property are hunting land near by that benefits from what I do. They just don’t get to walk into the heart of the operation and most likely will never know the extent of what we do.
After hearing on this site about some of the rivers and creeks in areas that get massive farm runoffs, I would think that most anglers would support some kind of buffer zone compensation to keep sediment and excess fertilizers out of the rivers.
So you think that landowners should be compensated with taxpayer’s money for doing what they should ethically be doing in the first place? I have a hard time with that one.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Riverrat wrote:</div>
After hearing on this site about some of the rivers and creeks in areas that get massive farm runoffs, I would think that most anglers would support some kind of buffer zone compensation to keep sediment and excess fertilizers out of the rivers.So you think that landowners should be compensated with taxpayer’s money for doing what they should ethically be doing in the first place? I have a hard time with that one.
Yes.
In a capitalistic society if you expect the masses to pass up on a dollar of revenue for the better of the environment, it won’t happen. Maybe years ago with small family-owned farms, but certainly not with many of the farms today.
I’d rather they get subsidized to support wildlife and other environmental concerns than get subsidized to grow more corn.
To the original questions, I think it’s valuable but needs to be examined on a case by base basis.
Some of the already menitoned programs (buffer strips, CRP, forestry) benefit the masses even without public access to that specific parcel. We have just finally begun to make renewed progress with managing agricultural runoff + sedimentation and if those programs are ended it’d be all for not.
Clean water and healthy wild game populations don’t happen by mistake and are not cheap to manage.
I’d rather they get subsidized to support wildlife and other environmental concerns than get subsidized to grow more corn.
X2.
So you think that landowners should be compensated with taxpayer’s money for doing what they should ethically be doing in the first place? I have a hard time with that one.
So a farmer that wants their land to be as profitable as possible is unethical? Good grief. Related to Reef’s comment on subsidies, the economic incentive is to till as many acres as possible. And this is driven in large part by the farm bills that have been in place for the last few decades.
Reposting the first post: There are a large number of State and Federal Organizations that fund private landowners in the name of conservation. I would like to know what programs like this you are aware of? And what your opinion is of govt $ going to private landowners without any public access attached to it?
My brother was just written a 75k check to conserve 10 acres of his 75 and keep it field instead of building a pole shed. It had something to do with pheasant habitat. Not sure how long he is in contract with them but no chance I’d accept that. I’m not sure if it was the mn dnr that wrote the check or pheasants forever but I was both of those groups out on his land one day looking over his smaller field
This is America. Ethics clearly are not a concern.
I know someone that gets paid by Wis to flail/brush hog part of his property and others. I always thought that seemed odd.
My brother was just written a 75k check to conserve 10 acres of his 75 and keep it field instead of building a pole shed.
I’d be interested in knowing what programs these are through.
I’ll add my two cents once the discussion has run it’s course, or diverted to a different topic.
Have a friend that on their old family farmstead in Minnesota went from renting out to CRP then to a conservation easement. Approx. 100 acres with 2 ponds but any water is all contained within the property. They hunt which is mainly pheasants but also ducks and deer. The payment for the easement was more than 75% of the going rate of the acreage to purchase. The state also paid for a couple of burnings and seeding.
No access to the public, very little benefit to anyone or anything but the owners of the property for their private hunting preserve. To me, in this case it seems like a crock of sh!! that the state would spend that kind of taxpayer dollars for this property. Maybe if it where a buffer zone or something but this is not the case.
Have a friend that on their old family farmstead in Minnesota went from renting out to CRP then to a conservation easement. Approx. 100 acres with 2 ponds but any water is all contained within the property. They hunt which is mainly pheasants but also ducks and deer. The payment for the easement was more than 75% of the going rate of the acreage to purchase. The state also paid for a couple of burnings and seeding.
No access to the public, very little benefit to anyone or anything but the owners of the property for their private hunting preserve. To me, in this case it seems like a crock of sh!! that the state would spend that kind of taxpayer dollars for this property. Maybe if it where a buffer zone or something but this is not the case.
Same deal for my brother. He was paid to preserve the land the way it is 100 percent private, no access for public. I’ll figure out the program when I call him later
i’m not sure if this is on the same lines but, my stepdad lives near New Richmond wi. think he has about 600 acres. he got a pretty good tax break from the state for enrolling it in some program but he had to allow others to hunt on it.
that really bothered him because its on a map for all to see so he took it off this program!!!!!
I was offered money to stop mowing my three acres at the lake cabin from the U of M I believe. It was to create more habitat for bee and butterfly pollination. Basically let the property go to prairie grass. Didn’t accept as it wasn’t much money. By mowing I keep most of the mice and other undesirables at bay. Still plenty of stuff growing where I don’t mow and I have bees and butterflies everywhere.
On the other hand I have a friend who got offered a serious amount of money to clear 20 acres of his nearly 400 on his hunting property to provide habitat for the Golden Warbler. He not only took their money but the logging company payed him for clearing it. Win win! He’s not sure how they knew Golden Warblers were on his property as he had never heard of them. But he says they taste like chicken!
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Karry Kyllo wrote:</div>
So you think that landowners should be compensated with taxpayer’s money for doing what they should ethically be doing in the first place? I have a hard time with that one.So a farmer that wants their land to be as profitable as possible is unethical? Good grief. Related to Reef’s comment on subsidies, the economic incentive is to till as many acres as possible. And this is driven in large part by the farm bills that have been in place for the last few decades.
Good Grief? You know farmers pay lobbysists to influence politicians to make sure that farm bills are written to benefit them don’t you? Have you ever looked at the subsidies paid to farmers by taxpayers and they want more to stop them from ruining the environment? Do you know what ethics are? Farmers have been scamming the taxpayers of this country for many decades.
Buffer strips are state law in MN. Legislation was passed on a bipartisan basis about 10 years ago and signed by Mark Dayton for mandated natural buffer strips along waterways here. If someone is still planting row crops right up to the waters edge, they are in violation of that rule in MN.
Buffer strips have greatly expanded wildlife habitat here and increased water quality since implementation. When that proposal first came out, farmers were heavily in favor against it. It still got pushed through by both state chambers because of the long term benefit.
Just think of what it would do in a big ag state like Iowa. The pheasant numbers would explode solely based on increased grassland available. But it takes political will power to take on the agriculture lobby, and they have a lot of power.
Gim, what department enforces that? We have two farmers that farm up to the bank of the lake that I live on. The other side of the lake there is a farmer that has a intake that should have a buffer strip around it. It runs strait to the lake.
Sorry for high jacking this but I need to talk to someone about this.
I am torn on tax payer money going to private landowners.
CRP provides a lot of great habitat. Sprinkle in a few trees on key high points and it’s great deer bedding.
But tax payer money being used to benefit only the landowner is a problem.
The one way things would sit better with me is if a landowner put their land into a conservation reserve and collected tax payer money. Then zero hunting should take place. The tax payer doesn’t need to fund a private landowners own hunting oasis.
With land prices skyrocketing and leasing prices going up every year. We are just pushing out the common hunter and turning things into a rich man’s sport.
When I was a kid before ethanol came along. The government had a program to pay farmers not to plant. Looking back this makes absolutely no sense to me.
They did it to curb the supply of small grain crops to raise the price of the crops.
Good Grief?
I am well aware of what there are for subsidies and I agree they need to go. I also know plenty of smaller farmers who are just trying to make a living. Just think you’re painting with a pretty broad brush when saying farmers are unethical for not setting aside land. Not all farmers lobby or are in favor of the farm bill.
Gim, what department enforces that? We have two farmers that farm up to the bank of the lake that I live on. The other side of the lake there is a farmer that has a intake that should have a buffer strip around it. It runs strait to the lake.
Sorry for high jacking this but I need to talk to someone about this.
I believe it’s enforced at the county level. Not positive though.
CRP and CREP are USDA (AGRICULTURE) supported conservation projects. The idea is to remove crop land from production – vs simple price supports to farmers, remove land more susceptible to wind and water erosion from farming, and provide grassland habitat (conservation). Has nothing to do with hunting access … but that said …
State Walk in Programs in the many states piggy back off that program and lease this land to open it to hunters …
CRP subsidies are a very small percentage of the subsidies handed out to farmers (price supports, crop insurance – supported below true cost, etc…)
You can see online by USA, by state, by county, by farmer every subsidy handed out by the USDA over the past 20 years or more. Breaks out by type of subsidy also.
The database tracks $522.7 billion in farm subsidies from commodity, crop insurance, disaster programs and conservation payments paid between 1995 and 2023
CRP payments were competitive a few decades ago, but at this time a landowner usually can get a better return farming or leasing than CRP payments offer.
CRP can offer landowners a fixed income when weather takes out their crops (flooding, drought, hail). Also provides a buffer when grain prices drop below the price it cost to plant, nurture, and harvest.
CRP grass can provide an emergency hay buffer in drought years. Pheasant hunters know this all too well when you drive up to a WIA and it is hayed.
SFIA is a program a property owner near me is enrolled in. Basically they pay you not to log or build on the property.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
