I agree with this.

Yes

Food production benefits everyone too. Probably on a larger scale than a few acres of pollinators. But it's still a move away from capitalism towards socialism and bigger government.

Not even close in my book. Your simply selling a service/product to the government. If an electrician is hired to wire a government building is it considered sucking off the government?

I suppose there are always exceptions. Back in the day I would bid carpet jobs for the government. They would have a line at the end telling you to subtract 10% from your bid if you are a minority or female owned business and it would be added back on if you were a minority bid winner. So everyone else started off at a 10% handicap.

Fence row to fence row agriculture was promoted big time by Sec of Ag, Earl Butts in 1972. Not only fence row to fence row, but many fence rows (which offer some minimal WL habitat in an otherwise barren habitat landscape.

Yes, some of the federal commodity programs are a bit much, while others, such as ; CRP, WRP, EQIP, CREP, CSP, etc., offer landowners/farmers incentives to ; conserve soil, establish wildlife habitat, enhance WL habitat, save existing WL habitat, conserve wetlands, re-establish wetlands, promote soil & water conservation practices on production agriculture farms..........etc.

Some have worked, some not so much. More politics involved with most of these than you can honestly imagine. The various Lobbies (in Washing DC) are very powerful and can make/break many programs OR change them to fit their preferences (this is usually the case).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the government is paying farmers not to work?

Not that I know of currently. Once upon a time (25 + years ago) there was a "set aside" program which paid an incentive to not plant certain acreage established by USDA-ASCS (now FSA).
So, yes......back when.

To me it’s more like the government renting the farmers ground for a different purpose.

The original concept of the CRP program was to give the landowner a monetary reason not to farm highly erodible land .When that erodible land is being put into production due to high crop prices it leads to runoff problems in water supplies ,flooding spray issues killing aquatic plants and animals .All of which end up causing the government to spend money to correct problems that could have been avoid to start with When the government started paying framers for crop insurance to encourage more production Farmers. began to farm land that prior to that had not been farmed While it is not perfect program It is at least an option that allows a choice to look at instead o fence row to fence row cropping Planting everY hillside and swamp land . And if you enjoy wildlife CRP CREP WHIP EQIP .Under the conservation programs at least society in general are gaining some value to the money spent on those program .

I just reviewed the crp and crep programs on the USDA website and the programs requires you to stop planting and harvesting crops and requires you to plant trees or grass ( They don't clearly specify the planting requirements of these programs) at least once during 10 to 15 year contracts?

Playing with nations food supplies began with Joseph in Egypt, I think.

Agree bigtime. Interest in CRP has decreased considerably as commodity prices have strengthened over time. Soil erosion has increased dramatically in recent years. Heavy sedimentation is threatening all riverine systems.

I agree - my point - still getting paid - for doing nothing

If the farmer rented the ground to a privet hunt club and the club planted food plots or pollen plots would you still consider it $ for nothing?

Here is a small snippet from https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe70s/money_04.html


"Crime Doesn't Pay… Neither Does Farming."
"Corn is in the barn, but it's not worth a darn."
"Parity Not Government Charity."
"All we want for Christmas is 100 percent parity."
"If you eat, you have a stake in the farmer's plight."

The embargo on Russia was the last nail that shut off the light from a free market.

Those "70's are coming back to haunt us. I think I remember a President going to China on a big trade deal and they own us today.

[/quote]I agree - my point - still getting paid - for doing nothing[/quote]



Not true
We still have to manage the land. Remove certain types of scrub brush.
Last year we had to pay to control burn 60 ac

That would be free market capitalism. It would be like renting it to another farmer to farm and make a profit. The government is not making a profit to pay you not to farm it. The real purpose of crp was probably reduce the supply of farmed products to increase price just like the dairy cattle destruction program.

I think farmers are over subsidized for sure, in lots of ways. I just don't see the pollination program is one of them, and is definitely not money for nothing IMO. I actually didnt realize the pollination program was considered CRP (Crop Reduction Program), I thought it was a separate deal.

On a side note, I had a short legged buddy from Canada down pheasant hunting a few times. He would call it CPR ground. When I would correct him he said, "I know what you call it, I call it CPR cuz that's what you need after walking it!" LOL

DVinke And that is in part one of the reason it is a worthwhile program I know some of the requirements are a real pain to comply with . But those requirements separate those looking for what they see as easy money And those that are willing to do the work to qualify to stay in the program .It is not just a form to fill out and waiting for a check in the mail . And for those mentioning the pollinator program .A huge amount of our food supply depend of those pollinators to make the food supply happen .Today after years of getting so educated about so many things we still need to relearn the basic concepts of nature Insecticides herbicides and so forth have a place in todays farming practices .But I have often been ask if I think the application of herbicides kill young pheasant chicks My reply is maybe not .But those chemicals kill food sources that young chicks eat so it is unlikely that those are helpful to the chicks survival And killing pollinators that are critical to generating human population food sources is not a benefit to long term sustainability Nature does not operate in a vacuum .It mankind messes up the interaction of how the food chain works we are messing with our own future So any program that helps to maintain sound wise use of conservation principals is a benefit to each of us It is not just a program of giving money while no one gets value in exchange . .

gee, and I converted a small hay field and 3 acres of old crop field into native grasses and forbs. Also 20 some acres of woodland that I highly manage to restore all manner of native plants especially the ground layer forbs all on my own dime.

I should really look into some of the Gov't handouts and see if I can get in on this gravy train.