Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Group wants grazing allowed on CRP land

Group wants grazing allowed on CRP land

Jun 13, 2008 - 05:22:04 CDT

By JAMES MacPHERSON
Associated Press Writer

North Dakota's agriculture commissioner says federal conservation grassland in North Dakota should be open to grazing to help ranchers in drought-stricken areas find pasture for their cattle.

The emergency request comes after state officials met with about 70 farmers and ranchers last week in Antler, in northwestern North Dakota, Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson said Monday.

"They told us, 'We got a major problem with pasture - there's nothing on it,"' he said.

Johnson is the chairman of the state's Agricultural Drought Task Force. It has about two dozen members, including the state Agriculture Department, the Game and Fish Department and the federal Farm Service Agency.

The group is slated to meet Tuesday by teleconference. Johnson said he expects it will recommend the immediate opening of the conservation grassland to grazing. The recommendation will be forwarded to Gov. John Hoeven, the state's congressional delegation and federal Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, a former North Dakota governor.

Schafer last month said the federal government would open millions of acres of Conservation Reserve Program to haying and grazing after birds have finished nesting on grasslands this summer. Johnson said that would be during the first week of August in North Dakota - too late for many ranchers.

"There is a need to get access to some of this right now," he said.

CRP, which started in 1985, pays landowners to idle environmentally sensitive land for conservation. Farmers are paid to plant cover such as grass on the land.

The recommendation to be considered Tuesday would allow ranchers to graze their cattle on CRP land in counties that can "show a grass production loss," Johnson said.

Pasture growth has been near nil over most of the state because of a cool, dry spring, said Jeff Knudson, a program manager with the state Agriculture Department.

"A lot of the state pastures just never got going," Knudson said. "Guys are running out of feed and hay."

Johnson and Knudson said the emergency request by the state drought group does not cover haying.

"Haying is much more controversial with the wildlife groups because of the nesting season," Knudson said.

Scott Stephens, a Ducks Unlimited biologist in Bismarck, said ranchers probably are having a tough time in North Dakota.

"Native grass in some pastures really is behind," Stephens said.

Ducks Unlimited strongly supports CRP and its impact on wildlife, which has flourished under the program, he said.

"If during dry times we have to allow some grazing, in general, we're willing to do that," Stephens said. "Because if ranchers have to sell their cow herds, the grasslands get converted to cropland, and that's a big negative for the birds.

"It's better to allow grazing than for it to become a soybean field," Stephens said.

The USDA has allowed emergency haying on CRP land in North Dakota and other states due to drought in other years. CRP payments were reduced if the land is opened to haying and grazing during drought years, though ranchers typically pay farmers the percentage of lost income for allowing use of the land.

North Dakota has about 3 million acres enrolled in the CRP, after losing about 400,000 acres from contracts that were not renewed last year. It was the biggest exodus of acres of any state from the program.

News > State

Printer friendly version Group wants grazing allowed on CRP land

Comments

blah blah blah wrote on Jun 17, 2008 9:49 AM:

" Don't sign up for the program or send the money back then you can graze your cattle all you want. Everyone wants something for nothing!!!!! "

Snap wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:25 PM:

" Awww, poor ranchers. They own more land than 30 citiens combined, hunt on it, fish and swim in their private lakes and ponds, relax in their hotttubs, and now times are tough? Times are tough in my line of work too, but I haven't called for a resolution to change any laws in my favor! "

my thoughts wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:07 PM:

" I am a firm beliver taht all CRP land should be hayed or grazed in a 3 year rotation. 1/3 should be grazed and 2/3's should sit idle. if you let CRP sit for too long then the grass gets over run with old growth and is not good for haying or hunting. At that point it has to much old stuff in it and is to thick for upland birds to nest in an has little nutricional value for cattle. "

rnchr wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:31 PM:

" all the fsa payments to farmers are a welfare check. getting paid to do nothing. and if crp is so stressful; then don't sign up for it......how hard is that decision? "

freemarketradical wrote on Jun 16, 2008 12:40 PM:

" Dave, You are correct that a landowner can make more if he opens it up to hunting. However the funding issues are critical. In ND PLOTS is funded by nonresident hunters and not every land owner that applies is selected, and some some withdraw because it is not worth it. I have 5 quarters in PLOTS and am not putting it back in due to slob hunter activity. That is to bad. When hunters get denied access I don't think it is good for the hunters, wildlife or farmers. "

Dave wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:26 AM:

" freemarket - regardless of the name of the program, the point was that if you wanted to take more money and have it open to public hunting, it could be done. "

freemarketradical wrote on Jun 13, 2008 11:51 PM:

" dof, I am in complete agreement with you about ranchers having to keep rented pastures grazed to dirt to keep others from outbidding it. This is espically noticable on public lands like school lands and in the national grasslands. If some one wants to overgraze his land or some landlord dosen't care so be it. I do not care, unless the stream is filling with sediment and it is comming my way. Overgrazing should never be tolerated on public lands, and I think the grazing associations should be disbanded and some other more sustainable, environmentally sound and fair should be deveoped. There is not much money in the Farm Bill for conservation of grasslands. All of the wetland stuff is for depressional type (praire potholes), none for the lineal type(rivers and creeks) that we have out west. That should change. I think it will be a geat day when the guy that recieves the largest FSA check in the county is the best conservationist in the county. I just can't help but believe in a time af record crop prices we still need commidity subsidies and all the market preverting outcomes they cause. .Sorry about the CRP and food plots jab, I didn't know what you had going. I will try to be more subtle in the future, but that won't be easy for me, I don't agree that people are forced to pay $20+_for pasture, or $50 for cropland in SW ND. As I see it they have the oppertunity to pay that, and are free to walk away if they want to. "

dof wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:30 PM:

" FMR>>>Regarding your post about taking care of pastures and rangelands, back when I was still in cattle, I rented a small pasture near my farm, (previous renter quit cattle)It had been run down, so I took very good care of the pasture built up the grass, sprayed the weeds, repaired the fences...didn't overstock it, and after 3 years another neighbor ran the rent up on me, and, the at that time landlord smiled all the way to the bank. If I could have done it over I would have grazed that piece of ground into the dirt..just in spite. I held on to that piece of pasture 9 years until I decided that it was just getting too dumb... Every three years, I would get a rent jacking with the "if you don't take it, so, and so will...." So there is another side to taking care of someone elses property. Just because you do a good job doesnt guarantee it will be appreciated or respected.
PS, before you write, think, don't twist others thoughts to create a confrontation. Life is a lot easier that way. "

dof wrote on Jun 13, 2008 8:25 PM:

" my, my, my, freemarketradical...aren't you the inquisitive one...the $20+ dollar per acre remark wasn't a 'whine' it was a statement of fact, most of the farmer/ranchers in this area have been 'forced' to pay premium amounts for pasture rent... supply and demand, thats the way it is.
Regarding my food plot delema, it wasn't written in the contract as producing proper yeilds, it was an intrepretation presented by an over zealous FSA supervisor, why waste time and money arguing with someone who has more authority, time and money...
And what irritated me about the '15% rebate' as you put it... I had nothing to do with the deal other than I allowed neighbors cut CRP for hay, and out of the blue I get a check from FSA as a repayment for an over charge to someone else (the guys cutting the hay) By doing this the FSA had put me in violation of the rules regarding profiting from the emergency haying program. And "I" had to scramble to prove that I didn't profit. (remember, if in violation repay ALL payments+ penality and interest, at that time about $200+ per acre) "

freemarketradical wrote on Jun 13, 2008 6:32 AM:

" dof, I think it was your saying "having to pay $20 + for an acre for pasture" ( a whine actually) that sorta made me think you were doing it. About your food plot effort, Why would you sign a contract that required you to achieve a "proper yield" as determined by the government ? Farmers can control imputs but not yields. Supprised you didn't know that. I also don't understand your complaining about the FSA rebating that 15% on your CRP cutting, Most people are happy when government checks show up in the mail box. "

kidder county wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:20 AM:

" CRP lead to my Fathers early death!! the strain and headaches that are involvedin this program was too much for his heart. that was 10 years
ago today. Welfare? my *ss the cost of seed to plant was unbelievable
the pitance that it brings in doesn't compare to the county to count rules
for weeds. plus if your neighbor happens to seed a weed in your crp
they run to Dorgan and Conrad forget Pomaroy he doesn't have a clue!!
and all the crybaby hunters well if you want to hunt buy some land and
work that land for 3 generations than you can whine and then let afew
on your land to leave gates open and throw your garbage around. This
CRP is good for one thing pheasants and grouse, "

dof wrote on Jun 12, 2008 11:35 PM:

" freemarketradical....I don't have any landlords...I don't raise cattle anymore.... Why else would I 'give' CRP hayland to my neighbors... are you... clueless? (as suggested by others) "

freemarketradical wrote on Jun 12, 2008 7:26 PM:

" dof,with your attitude about grazing I am supprised that your landlords don't through you off the land. Who could blame them for overgrazing rented pasture, you ask? I would. Being a good stockman is all about taking care of your grass. When ranchers (?) graze to the dirt, wind and sun further dry the ground out. With nothing to catch snow that blows away, also. Without cover, when it does rain it just runs off into the creek and dosen't get the chance to soak in. Once pasture has been abused that bad it can take years for it to come back. Cows eating to the dirt dosen't do them any good either, plut they tend to be found in the neighbors wheat field, as it always seems like the guys that over graze under maintain fences. The last time I was out by Rhame I saw the national grasslands had been abused so bad that I think a 3 year ban on grazing is more prudent than some minor grazing restrictions. I still run 40 cows, they are kinda my hobby, the legacy of a heard but together by my grandpa and dad. If I don't have enough grass I would buy hay or sell cows, but I would never abuse the pasture. No, I don't expect the Grazing Association the cowboy mafia, to invite me to their Christmass party. Do you still think I am clueless ? "

freemarketbradical wrote on Jun 12, 2008 6:57 PM:

" Dave, you are confusing CRP with PLOTS. There never was a open hunting provision. There may be an open fields provision in the new Farm Bill but I don't kinow. I never said that if not for CRP there would be no deer and pheasants. I said that CRP is responsilble for the large numbers we have. "

Dave wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:11 PM:

" to S.O: some CRP could be open to public hunting if the land owner took that option which actually pays more than regular CRP if I remember right. But not everyone wants their land to be completely open to everyone. There are actually a fair amount of landowners that have purchased land in CRP strictly for their own personal hunting. I know a couple of doctors who own about 1400 acres of it. They are not farmers, but I suppose they are on "welfare" too crpfatcow. "

S.O wrote on Jun 12, 2008 3:00 PM:

" Well than maybe, all the crp land should be open to hunt since they're getting fedral aide!!! "

lw wrote on Jun 12, 2008 2:07 PM:

" crpfatcow - I just re-read your post and see that I misunderstood the main part of what you were saying. I still don't agree with you to compare it to welfare but that would be a different response. "

lw wrote on Jun 12, 2008 1:11 PM:

" crpfatcow - CRP isn't welfare. The farmers/ranchers bought and paid for the land and pay the taxes on it. They are also responsible for the maintenance. The government pays them a minimal fee to seed mixtures of grass which promotes conservation and wildlife habitat. If it's welfare for anyone, it's for the environmental and wildlife groups that neither own the land nor pay the fee but end up with the benefit. So, if anyone's floating off of your tax dollars, it's them - not the farmers/ranchers. Assuming you pay taxes, that is. "

Dave wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:56 PM:

" hey freemarket, i don't have any CRP in my area and there are a ton of deer and pheasants. i'm pretty sure it has way more to do with mild winters than CRP. "

lutefisk wrote on Jun 12, 2008 12:20 PM:

" I think dof stated the facts pretty clearly, but those that have never been involved with agriculture still don't get it. It surprises me how the people in Bis/Man are so isolated and blind to the importance of agriculture in there community. I have lived both in Fargo and Grand Forks, and those communities seem much more aware of what is driving their economy. In most areas in the state it isn't oil, or coal, or pheasants - it is agriculture. "

Dave wrote on Jun 12, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Dof and Mike, it isn't work arguing with people who actually have no clue. If the non-farmers think farmers make so much money, then why don't we see them going out and buying land that is for sale so they can become big rich farmers? It's always the same few people on here ranting about and they will probably never understand. "

People wrote on Jun 12, 2008 8:11 AM:

" If CRP land is opened for grazing than the CRP status should be removed! If grazing is allowed on CRP land then the payments would be void for that year. Otherwise it is double dipping. Besides if the governement is paying for CRP land then the public should have the right to use it too. "

crpfatcow wrote on Jun 11, 2008 9:04 PM:

" "you should pay more attention to the billions spent in social welfare programs! "

That is exactly what CRP has become. It's funny how ranchers don't see themselves as being on a social welfare program. When you get something for a reduced cost or free, it's welfare. "

freemarketradical wrote on Jun 11, 2008 6:26 PM:

" The reason there are "more deer and pheasants than ever" is because CRP has worked. When the land comes out of CRP the wildlife will go away, along with the soil conservation, clean water and clean air benefits. It is private land and if the owner takes it out of CRP so be it, however, untill then, the farmer should be held to the agreement he made. Furthermore, no one at the FSA, NRCS or SCD is trying to "trick" anyone. This feels lake the late 1970's all over again. High crop prices, land prices, farming "fence line to fence line" Farmers going into dept for land and equipment, Only to be followed by the bust and farm crisis of the 1980s ,bankrupt farmers and farm sales, bank held auctions Gordan Kahl and the Poss, the movie Country ... I remember it well. This time we will not lose markets to a Embargo, I think we will lose to other producers in S America and the former Soviet Republics, Mostly because US energy policy is insane, and how much we spend on the military.The farmer should be able to take the land out of CRP if he wants to, but may very much regret that decision in a couple of years. "

dof wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:57 PM:

" And to NDresident... go out and find me a CRP contract that was written for $50.00 per acre in Southcentral North Dakota I want to read that one. Most were written for $20.00 to $25.00 per acre with the $5.00 maintenance payment. (CRP that came out in 2007 has been rented by farmers for $43.00 + on 5 year cash contracts.)
And your sit back and collect a payment BS is just that, trying to keep CRP weed free is a nightmare, most of it has become so rough ground spraying equipment won't work (breaks the sprayers booms) so hire an aircraft for $7.00 per acre, put a quart of 2,4,D LV6 per acre in it and see where the "big CRP payment goes"... and NO... crop dusters don't do "spot spraying"... you pay for the whole acreage in the tract. Enough!!! I just checked my blood pressure and its up...gotta go take some pills..... "

dof wrote on Jun 11, 2008 4:33 PM:

" and while I'm on this rant, Some posters are right that ranchers are stocking pastures to the limit. But when having to pay $20+ per acre for pasture, can you blame them? Your costs go up dramatically when only utilizing 50% of an input cost. And cattle can be bought and sold, however when a farmer/rancher has put together a "good" trouble free herd, selling them and trying to buy back the same kind of cattle is an impossiblity.(or a 10 year project at best)
Getting back to my disgust with CRP program, in 2005 I was accessed a $145.00 per acre penality on food plot acreage, the plot was planted, that was proven, however I was responsible for the food plot (it had to have what the government considered, proper yeilds) talk about making a farmer feel like God... When I started out I was enthusiastic about the program and its benefits to nature and the hunting community, now I can't wait to burn the paper the contracts were written on. Notice I haven't even gone into weed control for a pawltry annual payment of $5.00 per acre.... go out and buy a gallon of diesel fuel or a quart of 2,4,D.... but a deal is a deal, Right? "

dof wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:35 PM:

" Mike, I couldn't agree with you more, alot of the 'deal is a deal taxpayers' are clueless. The funny thing is they are a part of what is going to be the death of the CRP program. In addition to the payment rate being well below the cash rental rate, the nit picking weed control regulations, and the red tape hassle of releasing poor quality forage in times of need.
In 2006, I decided as a CRP participant to allow a couple of neighbors harvest some of what I considered to be poor quality hay. They were told on the onset they would have to pay 25% of the value of the contract to hay it. Two weeks later the rule was changed to 10%, so they were to be reimbursed 15%, but rather than refunding it to the guy making the hay (who wrote the check) they reimbursed it to the contract holder (me) who had to write checks to the guys making the hay, I then had to have photo copies of the checks written, and had to submit copies of cashed checks to the FSA, to prove that I didn't have a financial gain from the 'emergency haying program' , I then had to measure what was cut, make sure not too much was cut, how high the grass was cut, and be on the 'hook' if anything was not done to the governments regulations
Quite frankly, I have 1 CRP (150 acres) contract coming out this fall, on October 2, 2008, there will be a fire break plowed around it and I'll throw a match into it....Sportsmen, taxpayers, enjoy the hunting.
PS... the "hook" is payback all payments to the orgination of the contract + penalties and interest. "

ND Resident wrote on Jun 11, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Just take a drive out in the country and look at all the hay that's piled up from the last 3 years. You can tell the difference in the hay just by looking at it. I for one also believe that they should pay back the 40-50 dollars per acre if they want to hay that land. If I had 500 acres in CRP, I would't mind getting $25,000 from the government for just letting it sit there and doing nothing. "

logic wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:59 PM:

" When my business puts money in savings I get interest payments, When slow times come and I have to take out some money I no longer get interest payments on the money I took out.

If hard times fall upon the ranchers they should be able to take land out of CRP but then they shouldn't get paid for it. CRP land provides a service to the counrty of which they get paid for, if you no longer provide a service you shouldn't still get paid. They also can use the money they are getting from the Gov. to buy hay!

Ranching is a business just like I own a business, a big difference is I don't get handouts during my bad years! "

b wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:36 PM:

" to mike
totally agree with you, most people doing the harping don't have a clue. "

Mike wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:07 PM:

" To "Freemarketradical" The wildlife are having a tough time too! Are you crazy? We have more pheasants and deer out there than ever. I don't think wildlife is at stake here. Further more the Feds know that if they give farmers too much grief they will just pull their land out of CRP. These payments are tiny compared to the profit they could take from the land. I don't own cattle, but I totally disagree with you folks. In most cases if the CRP land is grazed the payments are cut or reduced for that year. If your worried about your tax dollars being spent you should pay more attention to the billions spent in social welfare programs! "

kc wrote on Jun 11, 2008 12:06 PM:

" If they want their cattle to graze on the land, then stop receiving payment from the government on that land. Convert it to what ever you want but stop complaining on your own choices "

ron wrote on Jun 10, 2008 10:17 PM:

" CRP payments are made with tax payers money! Leave the grass alone & sell some cattle. Most people are just getting to greedy & are running about 35-45% more cattle than they have land for on there ranchs. Why? Because if they complain the government will open CRP. Lets be honest and think about the next person. !!!!!!!!!!!!!OKAY!!!!!!!!!! "

freemarketradical wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:35 PM:

" I am anouther one that thinks it is just not right to graze or hay CRP land. US taxpayers had an agreement with the landowners to put that into CRP for the conservation benefits of cleaner air, water, and more wildlife. If it is a difficult time for cattle it is a difficult time for wildlife also. Just because some rancher messed up on his stocking rates and overgrazed his grass is no reason he should not live up to the agreement he made. The idea that we are not allowing the rancher to make living and support his family is silly. He had that oppertunity already when he cashed that CRP rent check. "

Mike wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:41 PM:

" So we have "Facts" "a" and "NDr" who think farmers shouldn't be able to access this land in a time of need. I hope if you 3 ever need help you get it and don't run into road blocks like you are trying to put up! It is attitudes and comments like these that are resulting in no one letting people hunt their land. We are not just talking about money, we are talking about the rancher and family making a living. People like you are annoying! "

JB wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:22 PM:

" Why should someone be allowed to graze on land that they rent to the Federal Government? This sounds like double billing and double payments to me. "

lutefisk wrote on Jun 10, 2008 12:15 PM:

" NDr - they do give up a percentage of the payment to hay or graze the land. The issue is that too many ranchers are depending on CRP being released year after year for hay production. They might have to forego planting wheat and put in some crop to be baled. And a - please don't start the CRP should be public land issue. That is not how the program is set up and that isn't going to change. "

NDr wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:30 AM:

" Not a problem. BUT you should have to give up any payments for the year(s) you do. Why should I as a taxpayer pay you to leave you land idle and then you be allowed to double dip by using it to graze and increase the value of your herd? Ranchers need to plan for good times and bad. Maybe you shouldn't have put quite that much land into CRP if you now don't have enough to graze.... "

a wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:03 AM:

" Then that land should remain unposted this fall! "

Facts wrote on Jun 10, 2008 8:01 AM:

" If CRP land is opened for grazing than the CRP status should be removed. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.