"open Fields" Program Cut

[Tim Smith]

...and if that flat tax nonsense goes forward you can expect quite a bit more conservation support to fall off the table as other incentives disappear. There has also been talk of selling off public land to cover public debt...

...that light down there isn't the end of the tunnel, fellas.

'Open Fields' Cuts Condemned by Sportsmen

Funding for the Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program, key

to providing

access to privately owned lands and waters, eliminated completely in new

funding bill

WASHINGTON - Sportsmen-conservationists today condemned a federal decision

to defund a keystone land conservation program, the Voluntary Public Access

and Habitat Incentive Program, also known as Open Fields, that facilitates

responsive private lands management practices and public access for

activities such as hunting and angling, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation

Partnership announced.

"While the necessity of reducing federal spending is inarguable, the truth

is that Farm Bill conservation programs like VPA-HIP are critical to

<http://www.trcp.org/assets/pdf/The_Economic_Value_of_Outdoor_Recreation.pdf

> the more than $95 billion in economic activity annually contributed by

hunting and angling," said Jennifer Mock Schaeffer, Farm Bill coordinator

for the Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. "We are deeply disappointed

by the shortsighted decision to completely eliminate fiscal year 2012

funding for VPA-HIP, which can help stabilize an economy already taxed to

the point of collapse."

The fiscal year 2012 "minibus" conference report, unveiled on Monday by

House and Senate appropriators, would fund the U.S. Department of

Agriculture along with a range of other federal entities. In addition to

VPA-HIP, numerous Farm Bill conservation programs face drastic cuts:

. Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program cut by $35 million;

. Wetlands Reserve Program cut by approximately $200 million;

. Grasslands Reserve Program cut by approximately $30 million;

. Environmental Quality Incentives Program cut by $350 million.

"Dedicated and ongoing work by the sportsman-conservation community has been

instrumental in bolstering Farm Bill programs that play a key role in

conserving privately owned lands and waters," said Steve Moyer, vice

president of government relations for Trout Unlimited. "Programs such as

Open Fields, which address the paramount issue of public access to these

areas, help perpetuate our outdoor traditions, along with the significant

economic boost they provide rural communities all across the country."

A vital part of U.S. private-lands conservation, the Farm Bill has helped

conserve and enhance millions of acres of fish and wildlife habitat and the

hunting and fishing opportunities they provide. VPA-HIP, which incentivizes

owners and operators of privately held farm, ranch and forest lands to

provide public access to their lands for wildlife-dependent activities such

as hunting and fishing, was included in the 2008 Farm Bill for the first

time in large part due to the efforts of the TRCP and its partner groups.

"Loss of access is the No. 1 reason hunters and anglers stop pursuing the

traditions we enjoy," said Steve Kline, director of the TRCP Center for

Agricultural and Private Lands. "For a program like VPA-HIP to be eliminated

in the rush to cut spending means Congress will be turning 'Open for

Hunting' signs into 'Posted: No Trespassing' signs all across the country,

with real impacts on local economies."

The TRCP's farm policy work is guided by the

<http://www.trcp.org/issues/agriculture/the-agriculture-and-wildlife-working

-group> Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group, composed of representatives

from the nation's leading sportsmen's groups and formed by the TRCP to

provide recommendations to Congress and the administration on Farm Bill

conservation programs critical to private lands conservation and hunting and

angling.

[FishinCricket]

in the rush to cut spending means Congress will be turning 'Open for

Hunting' signs into 'Posted: No Trespassing' signs all across the country..

Not to be contrary, but where are these "Open for Hunting/fishing" signs? I can't say I've ever seen one.. I see plenty of purple paint though...

[Justin Spencer]

Not to be contrary, but where are these "Open for Hunting/fishing" signs?

These are all over in Kansas, and some other states that aren't blessed with lots of public land like Missouri is. I think the Kansas program is a state one however. May be propped up with federal funds though. Hunting is going to turn in to a rich man's sport in much of the country where you can only hunt if you can afford to buy or lease land.

It seems as if everyone is wanting govt. to cut spending across the board, but when you look at many of the places they want to cut it ultimately costs jobs, and in this case natural resources and tax money that would be spent on recreational items. No easy answer and hard to make everyone happy.

[Tim Smith]

Not to be contrary, but where are these "Open for Hunting/fishing" signs? I can't say I've ever seen one.. I see plenty of purple paint though...

Since it was first authorized in 2008...barely off the ground.

But the general trend is going to be toward fewer conservation incentives, less public land and declining support for the regulatory agencies that keep rivers intact...

...problems are coming.

There's no real profit motive for individual land owners to keep land open unless they lease.

[Gilly]

Well, folks, I am a private land owner. I weighed the options when I returned some of the land to habitat. Now the comment I'm going to make is very specific due to a few boneheads and in no way directed to the vast majority. I am not profit motivated. I do not count on the land as a living. I highly respect my neighbors who do farm for a living. I bought my land with the intent to return it to prairie & trees. So again, when making the decision on how to do this because the cost per acre is pretty high if you do it right, I considered programs. But having to allow people on our land was the last thing I wanted to do. You see, one section to my west is the beginning of a strip of land along the Missouri River that is owned by the state and is public access. Over the years we have been witness to a lot of disrespect to the state land and adjoining private acres and as we have traveled about that seems to be a somewhat common story. Thus the need for conservation officers I guess. I read about and have been witness to lawbreakers of the rules established for lands & waters of public use everywhere and thought many times..."do I want to subject myself to that kind of bs?" No. Emphatically no.

Two weekends ago I finally posted no hunting/trespassing signs. We don't live there so because someone wanted to hunt it and no one was there to ask , a group of idiots hunted it anyways. We showed up just as they walked out. WTF I asked. "Well nobody said no" was their response. Yeah right.

Am I concerned about tax dollars not going to support hunting on private land? No.

[Justin Spencer]

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that most of the private land enrolled in programs for public hunting come from farmers than own large tracts of land. In Kansas for example this might be land already enrolled in CRP which is then enrolled in the walk-in-hunting program. They may not get much per acre for allowing hunting, but if you own 1000 acres it adds up. If they are hunters they probably keep their favorite spots for themselves, but allow the general public to use what otherwise would be sitting idle. They also enroll some areas left in wheat stubble as well as waterways and strips of timber. I have seen firsthand pheasant hunting in central Kansas what this particular program does for the economy of an area. Little diners are packed, horrible dirty hotels have no vacancy, and this money trickles down through the local economy. While a farmer may not make as much on these lands as he would if it were cropped, this often marginal farmland is kept out of production because the loss may be minimal, and is then better utilized by wildlife, erosion is eliminated, and public use boosts the economies of these areas during certain times of the year. Seems like a win for the farmer, a win for the hunter, a win for the ecosystem, and a win for the economy. Surely there are better ways to trim the fat than getting rid of these type of programs.

You must look past it being tax dollars supporting hunting on private land, it is much farther reaching than that.

[Outside Bend]

I've seen enough ditches and sinkholes filled with garbage, car body revetments, leaking septic systems, clearcuts/grazing/rowcrops right up to the streambank, and livestock in the stream channel to know land ownership and land stewardship are two very different things. Being able to sign a deed or a bank loan doesn't mean the landowner has the knowledge or skill to manage the land to meet their objectives, whether they be producing crops, livestock, or wildlife.

Like it or not, a whole lot of land in this country is locked up in private ownership. Like it or not, that means the viability of many game and non-game species is going to require the existence of suitable habitat on private lands. Every farmer I've met responds very favorably to cash, and programs like CRP and WRP are incentives for landowners not to plow that prairie or fill in that wetland to plant more corn and soybeans.

I'm a big proponent of easements too- I've used them quite a bit out west and have been able to hunt and fish places I'd otherwise have a snowball's chance of accessing. It's voluntary, it benefits farmers and landowners, and in my experience it helps foster relationships between landowners and sportsmen- groups like TU and Rocky Mountain Elk are much more likely to help with habitat enhancements, livestock fencing/watering, etc, when their members have a stake in the results. As issues like urban sprawl, development, water rights, gas/oil/mineral exploration and others gain greater prominence in our political discourse, it's going to be important that landowners have sportsmen's backs, and vice versa.

IMO it doesn't need to be a political discussion. Removing these programs reduces the incentives landowners have to provide wildlife habitat on their properties. That could very well lead to reduced hunting and fishing opportunities on both private AND public areas. It's up to sportsmen to decide if that's acceptable.

[3wt]

Oh come on. Don't fool yourself into thinking that bigger taxes = more tax revenue. There won't be anything to go around eventually, you can have 90% taxes and we'd still be broke if the economy doesn't turn around. Tax hikes will not let that happen. And then what happens to conservation, when we're really in a depression do you think conservation will be high on the list? Cuts have to be made. I don't like seeing all of this myself, but we either bite the bullet for a while and try to get out of it, or we keep spending all we want and get all of our favorite programs funded right up until the coffers run dry.

[Tim Smith]

Oh come on. Don't fool yourself into thinking that bigger taxes = more tax revenue. There won't be anything to go around eventually, you can have 90% taxes and we'd still be broke if the economy doesn't turn around. Tax hikes will not let that happen. And then what happens to conservation, when we're really in a depression do you think conservation will be high on the list? Cuts have to be made. I don't like seeing all of this myself, but we either bite the bullet for a while and try to get out of it, or we keep spending all we want and get all of our favorite programs funded right up until the coffers run dry.

The Speaker of the House has been very clear about this. The "Job Creators" are on strike. Buisnesses are flush with cash that they won't spend because they're "uncertain". Funny how certain they were back in the 90s when taxes were even higher than they are now.

So sure...bury conservation...and the auto industry, and the banking industry and everything else until you get a paler shade of candidate in office but don't expect anyone to believe that economic growth has anything to do with eliminating conservation set asides.

[Outside Bend]

Oh come on. Don't fool yourself into thinking that bigger taxes = more tax revenue. There won't be anything to go around eventually, you can have 90% taxes and we'd still be broke if the economy doesn't turn around. Tax hikes will not let that happen. And then what happens to conservation, when we're really in a depression do you think conservation will be high on the list? Cuts have to be made. I don't like seeing all of this myself, but we either bite the bullet for a while and try to get out of it, or we keep spending all we want and get all of our favorite programs funded right up until the coffers run dry.

I suppose. But I'm not sure how much ~600 million in cuts will affect the math of a 15 TRILLION deficit. If our debt is a serious situation it should be treated seriously, and we should be tackling elephants in the room too (no pun intended).

I'm all for responsible government spending. And the reality is these funds benefit landowners, they benefit sportsmen, the benefit the conservation crowd on the whole, they benefit the land, air, water, wildlife, and the local economy. But they've been unpopular in some philosophical circles since their inception, and I guess I wonder if this move to reduce deficits is genuine, or just a means of recalibrating the message in hopes of defunding programs some demographics have never approved of.