Bill Gilbertson wrote:Quack wrote:And it will kick out ducks, deer , and pheasants instead of corn, beans, & polluted runoff
Educate me. Isn't it doing that today via CRP and other programs without having to pay for the same benefits twice?
I'm all for the increase and I'm fine with the extra $10 bucks going towards easements.
Bill, how are we paying for the benefits twice by purchasing a permanent easement? With your last comment you seem to be advocating CRP and other programs over easements...I'm not understanding your train of thought.
Bill Gilbertson wrote:That won't happen with our $10. The easement land we pay for will get locked up and only hunted by the owner and his friends. If you want to hunt there, you will have to pay a trespass fee.
How is CRP any different from that standpoint? We, the taxpayer via the farm bill, pay landowners yearly for setting land aside via CRP. It's private land that almost exclusively gets locked up and only hunted by the landowner and his friends. When the contract is over the landowner can put the ground back into production if they choose to. When that happens, which has often been the case lately, there's absolutely nothing to show for the money that was paid out yearly for a decade.
I think your might be misunderstanding the intent of the increase. It's not really comparable at all to a program like CRP and it will most likely have very little impact to states like MN.
The easements are going to be geared towards states like the Dakota’s and Montana. As Quack said earlier this money will be going towards protecting what's still there...not restoring what's gone.
It's a good deal and the best bang for our buck. Plus it frees up the entire other $15 for acquisition...which is good for MN since there's lots of new WPA's going in and that's the primary funding source (that's often matched a bunch of times by other groups/government). It's land that's permanently set aside and open to hunting.