Shooting Preserves on CRP
January 24, 2001 Farm Bill Network e-mail List Discussion Summaries
By Amy Papenfuss
and Wendy Dickie, umbsn@smumn.edu
In this discussion, participants had different opinions about shooting
preserves and hunting on land managed by the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP). Some felt that when farmers allowed the public to hunt or make shooting
preserves of their CRP land, they were breaking laws and focusing on money
instead of preserving the natural wildlife and habitats of this land. Others
felt that shooting preserves encouraged farmers to better manage their lands –
without wildlife, they would not be able to make profits from hunters. This
lead to a more general discussion about the rights of landowners versus the
role of government conservation on CRP lands. Following are the highlights from
the discussion:
· In SD, we have always been against preserves on CRP, and continue to be.
· We didn't like the law being broken with some contracts running shooting preserves on CRP and others complying with the determination that you could charge a trespass fee but not run a preserve on CRP acres. I have a copy of a memo from FSA stating that mowing of strips for hunting purposes on CRP acres is strictly prohibited, even though a lot of people in our area still do it (lack of enforcement?).
· After 2 years of review, the national FSA decided to abort the rules and publish a "clarification" that, in effect, changes the operation and use of land under contract in the CRP program.
· The SD wildlife and environmental groups have always opposed the use of CRP acres for commercial hunting. We have supported ways to keep small family farms on the land, and reduce the commercialization of hunting and wildlife resources. We feel the best way to preserve our environment and the native wildlife would be to keep family farmers and smaller operators on the land.
· We also feel that some absentee landowners, and many corporate landowners have to respect the bottom line of their land assets, and are not concerned with the consequences of their management plans on our environment and wildlife. The move by the USDA to allow shooting preserves and mowing of grass strips for hunting reeks of the Farm Bureau and landowner rights groups that in effect say, " give us your tax dollars for the contract, but we can do what ever we want with the land".
· The change also plays into the hands of non-agricultural people being able to pay more than the land can produce for the acres if they are guaranteed hunting for 7 months (in SD) and have extra income from hunting to help satisfy the loans.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) and not the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) released the Commercial Shooting Preserves on CRP acreage (Notice CRP-380). Copies of the notice however have been provided from FSA to the NRCS offices.
· Let me first say that historically, the agronomy types like me were at odds with the wildlife community on how to vegetate and manage CRP land. Hindsight is 20/20 and we missed some opportunities to benefit wildlife here in Illinois on CRP acreage. When the structure of the CRP changed with the 1996 Farm Bill, I had "contaminated" myself with some basic understanding of wildlife biology. It made me a better agronomist.
· Synergy between scientific disciplines is almost always better than antagonism. When we re-designed approved seed mixtures for the program emphasis was placed on ground nesting avian species of concern. In our state, that translates into bobwhite quail and ring neck pheasants (a non-native bird) and to some extent migratory waterfowl. Obviously, non-game species are important, but these two species are what we were told by the wildlife biology community were the primary species of concern. I don't think that the fact that these species are game species is coincidence.
· Our new seed mixtures were designed to create diversity and refrain from using invasive species. Regardless of what is done with seed mixture design, CRP stands will eventually become sod bound. Our soils, rainfall, and climate cause this to happen in a relatively short time period for both native and introduced seed mixtures, at least as compared to semi-arid and arid environments typical of the Great Plains. Without management this is inevitable. It is an agronomic fact if you don't set the grasses back, the legumes and other broad leaves will not compete in the long term. Legumes are their own worst enemy because they provide nitrogen to the grasses. Trying to get legumes and broad leaves to compete with a sod bound stand of grass e.g. smooth bromegrass or switchgrass is like asking a baby to play defensive tackle. It "ain't" going to happen unless you do something to the bromegrass with extreme prejudice.
· Management with fire, light tillage, grazing/haying, and chemicals are the tools available. Farmers wishing to re-enroll their CRP acreage have to agree to modify their existing cover to enhance wildlife values, if needed, if they want to compete in the sign-up. Ironically the 10 plus year old CRP stands that demonstrate some species diversity have been hayed, grazed or burned. In fact the best thing one can do to sod bound introduced cool season cover is to graze it to the ground. Obviously not during the nesting season.
· Another irony with quail or other small ground nesting birds is that when grass stands get sod bound for several years the birds have long had to move on to better habitat or – even worse—had already perished. As a consequence there are few if any birds nesting there.
· The bottom-line, at least here in the rain-fed areas of the country, the more restrictions on management the less wildlife will benefit in the long term. Also the farmer who does take advantage of hunting income opportunities is more likely to manage the CRP acreage for wildlife benefits.
· The National Wildlife Federation and many of its statewide affiliates are concerned at the growing privatization of wildlife, which is a public good, particularly when an individual is privatizing wildlife and making a profit off of it using public funds.
· Charging individuals for access for hunting on CRP lands is a good example of this privatization. To counteract this, NWF and its affiliates would like to see some incentives in the next Farm Bill to reward landowners that voluntarily provide access to their CRP lands. This could be done though some additional points (10 perhaps) in their EBI score if they provide public access to CRP lands.
· So as not to compete with state walk-in programs, participation in such a program could be used to quality for these additional points. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this idea.
· At lease in Minnesota, shooting preserves serve hundreds of clients, who pay to hunt stocked birds for a few hours or days at a time. The "pheasant hunting season" is often year-round on shooting preserves and clients shoot both hens and roosters (which are stocked shortly before the clients start hunting).
· From a habitat perspective, these shooting preserves are harmful to wildlife because of the continuous disturbance. In contrast, leased hunting land (at least in Minnesota) generally produces an abundance of wild game, with access sold to a small number of hunters, who must operate within the state hunting regulations (for pheasants, 2 roosters/day during a 65-day season). From a habitat perspective, leased hunting land is good for wildlife.
· I wholeheartedly agree that economics is nearly always in the driver's seat as programs are implemented and interpreted. People will find ways to maximize income, and will push the constraints of programs (and even the law) in doing so.
· Hunting preserves is a function of people being willing to pay for that service. However, there are not many of these in Missouri, maybe a half dozen and I see little compromise of the wildlife purposes of CRP if managed under the described criteria.
· I am sure that their business is important to them, just as a business is going to be important to any owner and the owner's family. The amount of CRP land in Missouri (affected by the ruling) is very small and I doubt that this acreage will increase much (if any) over the next several years.
· I also respect your assessment that family farms disappeared in your area about the time Earl Butz was Secretary of Agriculture (you are the expert in your area, not me), but the nation is large and that may not be the case everywhere. In my own family, 'family farms' have persisted until now.
· As family members retire from farming, their children are not pursuing farming and it looks like the tradition will end in my family over the next few years. However, there are still family farms in Missouri and Eastern Oklahoma (where my roots are) but they are disappearing fast -- either consolidation into larger corporate farms or into smaller farmettes owned more for recreation/green space reasons than farming.
· CRP does not satisfy everyone in implementation, so that mistakes are sometimes made and interpretations that make perfect sense in one place make perfect nonsense somewhere else. This is partly because of the difficulty of melding diverse perspectives and interests (where each wants something a little different) in the creation of programs.
· I think to achieve the sustainability of natural resources that society seems to want (and, I think, needs), economics has to be a key.
· Previous Farm Bill's, that bolstered cropland income, worked exceedingly well (perhaps too well given current overproduction) to encourage maximum production on maximum acres of land.
· Perhaps what we need is a Farm Bill that also delivers income in return for conservation - to serve as a companion to whatever production supports are deemed necessary.
· Economists may shoot me down but it seems to me that as long as programs encourage production, then that is what will happen -- at the expense of natural resources (remember, economics drives things). But, if we can get to a point where economics encourages production on the lands best suited to production and that achieves conservation, then society could have the food/fiber and conservation it wants.
· Compensation for conservation, in conjunction with a production safety net, could be the ticket.
· First, whatever the rules are regardless of intentions, those that favor more dollars per acre of return will usually be most quickly found and exploited.
· Secondly, family farms are a figment of everyone's imagination, the Norman Rockwell nostalgia not withstanding; they ceased to exist about the time Earl Butz was secretary of agriculture and fencerow to fencerow was heavily adopted. I know because I have lived on a "family farm" that at one time supported 3 families, then 2, then 1 and now without off farm income we would not be able to "farm".
· The hunting preserves exist because someone is willing to pay for that service, or good whichever you prefer.
· CRP is far from being a great program, is fraught with screw-ups just as all of the USDA hodge podge of programs are.
· As the discussion evolves on land use it seems to be coming back to the ultimate dictator of land use-economics! Urban sprawl increases at an awesome rate whenever Ag lands values decline. Now, that land values are almost back to 1980 levels and non-farm income has had an 8-year upward progression, their is really no economic rationing of land for use for developments and commercial purposes.
· When the income from land use doesn't rise enough to temper transfer of use to "sprawl" or other less desirable land use, the "less desirable" will occur. When income from Ag use rises enough to ration land use to a rate that dictates more efficient use of land for dwellings, we will have much less "sprawl".
· The Natural Resources Conservation Service recently issued Notice CRP-380, detailing a reformed relationship between CRP landowners and commercial shooting preserve operators.
· As you probably know, in October 1998, the Acting Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs of the USDA (Parks Shackelford) issued the controversial Notice CRP-327. That notice prohibited commercial hunting on CRP lands due to concerns with wildlife habitat degradation (e.g., mowing CRP cover to increase hunt accessibility). Resultantly, sportsmen's and conservation groups, Congressional members, game-bird breeders and the shooting preserve industry-expressed concern with the ruling.
· Notice CRP-330 was issued in November 1998 to withhold Notice CRP-327 for complete evaluation. Notice CRP-380 clarifies CRP-327 and states:
1) RECREATIONAL HUNTING: CRP participants may lease hunting rights, charge hunters an access fee, or implement similar hunting operations during the regular hunting season for game species that normally use the area. Federal and State laws, including specified bag limits, apply.
2) COMMERCIAL SHOOTING PRESERVES: This activity is lawful if ALL of the following apply to the CRP acreage in question...
*The preserve must be licensed by a State agency
*Preserve operators adhere to applicable State agency rules
*Preserve operators maintain CRP covers as prescribed in the conservation plan
*Unless required by State law, no barrier fences or boundary limitations exist that impede wildlife movements to or from the CRP acreage
*Cover maintenance related to preserve operations
MUST: a) adhere to the acreage's conservation plan; b) benefit and enhance wildlife populations normally using the area; c) occur outside the primary nesting season; d) not negatively impact CRP cover; and e) not sacrifice benefits to wildlife habitat, water quality or erosion control efforts.
3) MOWING OF CRP COVER: No periodic, cosmetic, or annual weed control mowing is allowed. CRP participants can mow up to 20% of their total acreage for a given CRP field IF the mowing activity is: a) noted in the acreage's conservation plan; b) noted in the State-approved management plan for habitat maintenance and wildlife/land management; and c) occurs outside the primary nesting season. CRP participants must alternate mowing locations on an annual basis.
* Note: CRP landowners can spray, burn and mow the acreage under contract at anytime until NRCS releases its final status review, but ONLY IF the activity is required for cover establishment under the acreage's conservation plan.
· The farmer is not in the wildlife business. Shouldn’t the taxpayers that provided 50% or more of their incomes in the last year (according to USDA numbers); have anything to say about access to wildlife or the programs that would provide access?
· Our society demands that agricultural producers feed this country, yet our society also demands other "public" benefits (clean air, water, and wildlife) from that private land.
· Our society's public trust doctrine (air, water, and wildlife are public resources) often butts heads with our European ideal of private property ownership. We ask for public resources from private property and spend public dollars to help private property owners produce these public resources. As it relates to this issue, CRP is a public (taxpayer) funded program and in many cases other public funds (many state agencies cost share for better wildlife seedings, wetland restoration etc) are also spent on CRP.
· When fees are charged to "access" this publicly paid for resource it is understandable why folks get agitated. Perhaps those landowners that provide public access to their CRP should receive a reduction in their federal taxes on that land.
· Why, because their action "allowance of public access" creates a big economic boom to the local economy and we all know how society likes a strong economy.
· No one is talking about forfeiting private property rights. Just rewarding, with an additional EBI score, landowners that voluntarily allow public access to their land. It is my understanding that hunter walk-in programs have been wonderfully successful in places like Nebraska, Kansas and South Dakota.
· The tactic I propose would complement those programs, providing additional voluntary incentives to providing public access. Also, by working with those state-run programs, you could get around many of the liability and enforcement issues that Ron raised as possible roadblocks.
· I whole-heartingly agree with Wayne in regards to farmers NOT being asked to give up the right to lease CRP land for hunting. Farmers need to find niche markets in order to survive. I work with Missouri farmers on a daily basis as an NRCS employee, and as such, one of my jobs is enrolling folks in CRP. I honestly cannot think of one farmer in my county that would take 10 EBI points on his application to forfeit his property rights as a landowner. Wildlife enhancement programs such as CRP, WHIP and WRP to name a few, enhance wildlife habitat. Enrollment in CRP and WRP will drop in my neck of the woods if there is talk of taking away hunting rights.
· USDA is putting up a new $30 million for Farmland Protection Program this year. I am trying to gauge how much activity we might expect this year from federal, state agencies, land trusts, etc. seeking conservation easements. New funding commitments or policy changes could suggest more activity.