Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 207361" data-attributes="member: 373"><a href="https://www.tsln.com/news/hay-grazing-plan-in-court/" target="_blank">https://www.tsln.com/news/hay-grazing-plan-in-court/</a>USDA argues that none of the individual plaintiffs in the case can show they are being truly affected by the haying and grazing rule. The plaintiffs also have not identified any specific lands where the National Wildlife Federation’s members have been harmed by the decision.The 2002 farm bill gave USDA the authority to manage haying and grazing on CRP land. Because of disputes over the way USDA’s Farm Service Agency was using its authority in regards to haying and grazing, the national Wildlife Federation sued USDA in 2004 in the same Washington federal court dealing with the current case. USDA and the National Wildlife Federation settled that lawsuit in 2006 with an agreement that allowed haying in one year out of 10 on CRP land in the western U.S. and “sharply limited” USDA’s ability to use grazing as a management tool, according to the current court record. USDA agreed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act before modifying any terms of the 2006 agreement.KDM  "got together with the govt" is a bit disingenuous. The National Wildlife Federation SUED the govt over its's ability ot manage hay ing and grazing CRP which was granted to the USDA in the 2002 farm bill.   The "contract" the land owner signed was under the rules the USDA had of being able to manage the haying and grazing on these lands. Managed haying and grazing on a three year rotation was part of that plan the ranchers signed up for under some contracts and they were NOT trying to "manage it themselves". The NWF SUED and the USDA settled.  KDM had Hillary won I can guarantee you the EPA would not be backing up in WOTUS. And it is not yet a done deal. The example of that had you googled a bit more information shows that had that passed even if you were not in any govt program you could have been regulated on what you did as the US controls waters of the US and lands that impact them. If you wish to get into a tit for tat on knowledge of the WOTUS please feel free I don't have to "google" to tell you about it. Something you may wish to google is "significant nexus". You gloss over the ESA and critical habitat designations as well as the link to the collection of rain water on private lands .....and I can continue to provide you links to examples if you wish. But the point here is there are in FACT outside influences on why CRP is no longer with us besides JUST economics.. In Farm country it most certainly is economics on 99% of decisions not to enroll. In ranching country it is a bit different. Go ask a rancher what they know about CP 23 CRP contracts and get ready to get an earful. So if you wish ot have a meaningful discussion of bettering habitat development here in ND you may want to acknowledge the impact orgs like the National Wildlife Federation had as they practiced their "sue and settle" agendas or you likely won;t get far with the landowners that create or destroy the habitat.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA