Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 219702" data-attributes="member: 373">S. 909 would expand and improve CRP by: reauthorizing the program through fiscal year 2023; increasing the annual acreage cap to 30 million acres; revising the formula for determining state target acreage enrollments; and modifying policies regarding grazing and harvesting cover on CRP lands.https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/909/textFrom what I can tell, they are pushing to restrict haying or grazing from what has historically occurred. What most people do not realize is that in ND the different types of contracts CRP was enrolled under,many of the acres did not allow ANY haying or grazing.   CRP enrolled under a CP 23 designation was never allowed to be hayed or grazed. The simple fact that most do not realize here in ND even under drought designations and emergency haying and grazing designations, less than half of CRP acres were impacted by grazing or haying. So one needs to know the Paul Harvey Rest of the Story in what contracts even allow grazing to occur currently under new CRP provisions. PF has had a long standing history of working against haying or grazing of CRP. <a href="http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/CRP.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/CRP.pdf</a>The simple fact is if sportsmen want CRP they need to rein in these "sportsmen" orgs that contributed to why CRP acres disappeared which is in part the lawsuits they filed to restrict managed or CFU designations of haying or grazing on CRP. Those in need of hay or grazing lands during drought situations are not very receptive to willdlife orgs filing law suits when they already have over half of the acres in a CRP program not able to be hayed or grazed or required to be left.</blockquote>

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

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA