Farm Bill is a WINNER for Hunters/Conservation!

[Landrover]

https://www.outdoorlife.com/2018-farm-bill-is-win-for-outdoorsmen-puts-more-dollars-into-conservation?cmpid=ene20171217&utm_source=internal&utm_medium=email&cid=43961&mid=376136341

Yep, I know there is a lot of PORK in our farm bill but it is finally good to see this. SCI, RMEF, NWTF, QDMA, QU, MDF, etc were all pushing hard to see this happen.

[dbaio1]

Yep it helped extend a little help for the Sugar farmers back home too

[AntlerCollector]

Good deal

[lovemylegacy]

What is good about it? I couldn't get the link to open.

[Birddog66]

Sounds like some great news! Trump just needs to sign.

[Stoof]

What is good about it? I couldn't get the link to open.

From the article:

Here are some highlights:

The Farm Bill supports incentives for wildlife habitat improvements on active farmland, under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which is getting a $275 million-per-year boost.

The Voluntary Public Access program, saw a $10 million jump, from $40 million to $50 million. The program creates incentives for landowners to provide public access to their land for hunting, fishing, and other outdoor recreation.

The program providing incentives for easements protecting wetland conservation and restoration increased by $200 million per year. Wetlands are important for waterfowl, of course, but also serve as habitat for a broad variety of wildlife and act as filters that keep rivers clean.

Many upland bird hunters keep a close eye on Conservation Reserve Program, which provides farmers with incentives to not till highly erosive soils on low production ground. This prevents soil erosion, but also provides grassy nesting and hiding cover for upland birds. The amount of acreage allowed in the CRP program went up 3 million acres from 24 million acres to 27 million acres. Still, that figure is below levels from a few years ago and the amount paid to farmers per acre remained low. CRP peaked at 37 million acres in 2007.

“The acreage for CRP is still below recent levels, but we consider this a step in the right direction,” said Maggos.

[Gunnyart]

Another perspective: https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ism-subsidies/

[41Chevy]

Another perspective: https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ism-subsidies/

"This is the Obamacare of agriculture subsidies"

[Mike D]

I hate to be Devil’s advocate here, but where does the money for this come from? And is it really the .gov responsibility to subsidize private landowners for public access?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Atfulldraw]

I hate to be Devil’s advocate here, but where does the money for this come from? And is it really the .gov responsibility to subsidize private landowners for public access?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

would you prefer there be less access for public hunting or have the government spend money like they usually do to actually buy the land and then not allow much public access?

[Razrbk89]

Another perspective: https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ism-subsidies/

I’m not even sure what to say about that article....pretty sensational. I loved the part about how farmers incomes are 32% higher than the average American’s. I wonder what the average American’s input cost are, or what their crop insurance costs them?

People are out so of touch with agriculture that you really can’t even have a conversation about it. Major companies already control the industry and are squeezing independent producers out, daily. These aren’t your little mom and pop operations, either. The tariffs put the screws to so many people around here it’s ridiculous. Horrible political move that could have lasting ramifications on US producers.

Glad they helped some of the conservation programs, though! I was worried they’d totally go back on their campaign promises in that area.

[Mike D]

would you prefer there be less access for public hunting or have the government spend money like they usually do to actually buy the land and then not allow much public access?

That’s not what I said but.....

If we are going to hold the Dems responsible for properly funding subsidies, we should hold the republicans responsible as well.

Can’t have it one way but not the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[WItoTX]

Another perspective: https://www.investors.com/politics/e...ism-subsidies/

That article is nothing more than clickbait headlines. It's true, there is bad in the farm bill, but there is also good, as stoof highlighted. All said and done, it's going to be more positive than negative.

There were also bad parts of the tax cuts congress passed last fall, but I think 95% of people benefited.

[Stoof]

We have to subsidize certain industries. WWII taught us that. Just because we don't need the product today doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready to produce tomorrow. As far as I understand it, that is what it's all about. The conservation portion is a win in my book.

[flywise]

Good deal
Dispite the naysayers