[Fetch]

Are these just angry Farmers ??? Friends or Foes ??? I do believe they lobby hard for their positions. I also know several that support this cause, also have been responsible for much negativity towards hunters (Both recently & in the past) ??? http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/9297/

[ This Message was edited by: Fetch on 2002-05-06 18:55 ]

 

[Perry Thorvig]

One quick look tells me what they are.

Here is a quote from their page. "Does it bother you that the Conservation Reserve Program, originally designed to protect highly erodible land has turned into a program benefiting ducks, but hurting young farmers and rural communities?"

Looks to me that they would be more of a foe to us hunters rather than a friend.

 

[prairie hunter]

I as a hunter and hunting conservationist support CRP and programs like it. Wetlands especially need protection from greed.

CRP is very cost effective conservation tool and helps reduce surplus grain.

BUT on the otherside

+)CRP does compete with active farmers for available farmable land. May increase rent rates. Less jobs ?

+)CRP does reduce the amount of grain moving through ND elevators, carried via train, carried via semi-trailer. Less jobs ?

+)CRP likely results in less tractors, combines, etc being sold in rural ND.
Less rural jobs ?

So every point has a counterpoint. The trick here is to make sure that land set aside in CRP is truly poor farm land and good for conservation. Spread out the CRP acres so that no one area is too CRP rich or poor.

Companies such as Cargill and ADM are your biggest opponents to CRP. They get a cut on every bushel of grain moving through the system, thus make money no matter what the price is - as long as a lot of bushels move through the system. Both companies lobby hard to minimize, reduce, or eliminate CRP acres.

[ This Message was edited by: prairie hunter on 2002-05-07 16:00 ]

 

[Perry Thorvig]

Here are a few opinions by Tony Dean about the impact of CRP on rural towns in the Dakotas - from Tony's website.

"There are some who suggest the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and low commodity prices as well as government land purchases has resulted in a lot of prime farmland being taken out of production as the reason for small town woes. But though that might sound popular in some areas, and is frequently the ugly rhetoric of anti-government groups, it has no basis in fact. If commodity prices were to triple tomorrow or if the CRP program ended, it would mean little to Souris, Westhope or Kramer. The real problem they face is not enough customers to support their local businesses. Viewed from that perspective, you can more easily understand why small towns welcome visiting hunters and even encourage the occasional commercialization that it often brings.

Two years ago, a Twin Cities-based rural development expert offered a view of what life could be like in the Dakotas over the next few decades. Speaking at a rural development conference in Kansas City, Karl Stauber predicted we could become a playground for the wealthy populated by a few, with those remaining divided between a few wealthy landowners and a larger poor class that would serve both. He said rural development efforts that merely distribute payments to a declining number of producers won't help struggling small, rural communities.

Nor are the Dakotas the exception in rural America. The headline on a recent editorial in the Des Moines, IA Register read, "The 160-Acre Farm Isn't Coming Back."

If current trends continue, those who live in the Dakotas primarily because of the high quality of outdoor recreation, stand to lose the most. Increasing fee hunting services already have state governments scrambling to provide public recreational land. However many ag organizations oppose fee title purchases and say instead, the state should lease the land. But what does the state have after a decade of leasing but a pile of rent receipts? Is this really a wise use of taxpayer or license dollars? Would it not be better to buy it now while land is still affordable?"