DU backstabing

[Big Country]

I personaly am very peturbed with the recent actions taken by Ducks Unlimited to rob from the pocket of farmers as well as all other previsions under the farm bill. This is not the time for corprate yupies to do such a thing. i am sick and tiered of all these people thinking they know what is best for the environment and very seldom step outside there 33rd floor office to see what is realy going on. i sincerly hope that all farmers and people who's lively hood depends on farming contact DU and expess there disapointment with this situation. it means a lot to me a young farmer tring to get started that the farm bill provide as much asistance to me as possible and i will see to the consevation myself. DU can kiss my well you know. null

[MSDuckmen]

DITTO

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Can someone please explain exactly what DU allegedly did to the farmers by supporting spending for WRP and CRP programs? Include your breakdown of the bill's provisions, how the money is to be spent, and how any of you would prefer it be spent. Thanks.

[LongBarrel]

Take a look here, Farm Bill Overview for the lowdown

[Doc & Nash]

You would think that the yupies in washington would have realized by know that the better the farmers do the better the enitre economy does, I guess they would rather send our hard earned dollers over seas to help Osma or some other d@#%head

[Po Monkey Lounger]

I read the Farm Bill Overview. Not really sure what organization prepared this overview, but it appears most likely to be some type of small farmer's rights group. In any event, it appears that the total acreage for WRP is being increased over last year, just not as much as many would like. The other sore spots pointed out appear to be big farm vs small farm type issues as opposed to issues of particular interest to duck hunters. No mention of CRP, which I presume is still being funded and likely increased over last year. Due to the events of Sept. 11, we are probably lucky to be getting the CRP and WRP acreage increases we are getting. I still do not understand the source of all the hoopla against DU arising out of all this. No one can apparently explain it in a clear, articulate manner. It appears that some on this board do not know what they are talking about, just repeating something they heard from someone else. With the anti-DU sentiment on this board, I guess any excuse to bash DU, whether explainable or not, is now the "in" thing. Go figure. Well, this weekend I am going to go harvest a few of these ducks produced by the favorable breeding conditions, CRP, WRP, and efforts of organizations like DU and Delta Waterfowl. And after doing so, I'll thank God, our congressmen, and all the volunteers who work without compensation for DU and Delta Waterfowl to preseve this precious resource.

[Micah]

The overview that you read doesn't sound like it includes the provisions of the Kind Ammendment, which makes sense because the Kind Ammendment has not been approved yet as far as I know.

The major part of the Ammendment that has drawn criticism is the provision to take approximately $2 billion per year from the commodity subsidy programs and use that money to further increase the funding for the conservation title of the ammendment. This proposed increase in funding for CRP, WRP, and WHIP is in addition to the already approved 80% increase in dollars appropriated for conservation.

You can find more information on the Kind ammendment by searching for that specific phrase. I haven't seen any Farm Bill summaries that include the details of the ammendment, but there are some sites that detail the impact of the ammendment. I am yet to find the actual text of the ammendment on the net, but I will try to post some links to information as soon as possible.

Please note that this is my approximation of the effects of the proposed ammendment to the Farm Bill.

Thanks,
Micah

[MSDuckmen]

I know quite a bit about DU and how they manage their money's for Mississippi. You can drive down HWY 12 and see the DU signs for yourself and see where the money goes.
I have walked some fileds that DU created in this state and it would piss you all off.

The rich keep getting richer and the rest of us just sit back and watch.

[LongBarrel]

~~~~POOF~~~~

Da Kind Amendment

Boehlert-Kind-Gilchrest-Dingell Conservation Amendment to H.R. 2646
$5.4 Billion Per Year for Conservation Incentives on Working Lands
The amendment strikes the existing conservation Title II and replaces it with the following.

TITLE II -- CONSERVATION
SUBTITLE A -FARM, RANCH, AND FORESTRY PRESERVATION

Section 201. Farmland Protection Program

Increases annual funding to acquire development rights from farmland in path of sprawling development to $100 million in FY'02, $200 million in FY'03, $350 million in FY'04, $450 million in FY'05, and $500 million in each of fiscal years 2006-2011.

Instructs use of $10 million of these funds program to enhance farm viability and competitiveness by providing market development grants and technical assistance to protected farms.
Section 202. Socially Disadvantaged Farmers

Provides mandatory funding for program to assist social disadvantaged farmers of $15 million. (Previously, funding was discretionary and averaged around $3 million per year).
SUBTITLE B: ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP ON WORKING LANDS

Section 211. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (provides incentives and cost-share assistance to farmers and ranchers to improve water quality and wildlife through conservation practices on working lands).

Increases annual funding for EQIP to a total of $1.7 billion when fully phased in.

Opens EQIP to non-industrial private foresters.

Increases authorized amounts for each recipient to $30,000 per year and $150,000 in total and allows farmers to exceed payment limitations to share in the cost of digesters.

Requires use of ranking index to determine enrollments to maximize environmental benefits and requires index to make special provisions to ensure enrollments by economically disadvantaged farmers. This system replaces prior prioritization system.

Maintains requirement that half of funds be used to provide assistance to livestock

Maintains current restrictions on using EQIP funds to support waste management facilities by large animal feedlots, but this provision allows funds to be used by such feedlots for technical assistance and land management practices. "Large" feedlots are defined by the Secretary but presently are defined as feedlots with more than 1,000 animal units - only 3% of all dairy farms.

Instructs Secretary to attempt to dedicate $100 million annually each on innovative manure management, water conservation, pesticide and herbicide reduction with an emphasis on reducing direct human exposure, and managed grazing.

Phases I up to $700 million for a watershed-based program to help landowners implement nutrient management, pest management, and soil erosion practices that protect drinking water supplies. These funds are to be spent in accordance with a locally developed watershed plan and allocated with recognition of state funding efforts.

Creates a pilot program in 15 watersheds annually to improve water quality in cooperation with local water utilities.

Of these watershed funds, targets up to $100 million annually for a pilot program in 5 impaired watersheds to provide incentives for agriculture producers to reduce nitrogen and phosphorous applications based on actual performance.

Links state allocations to local input, monitoring, and education efforts.
SUBTITLE C: PRESERVATION OF WILDLIFE HABITAT

Section 221. Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program

Increases funding for WHIP to $200 million for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $350 million for FY'04, $450 million for FY'05, $500 million each for the fiscal years 2006-2009, $400 million for FY'10, and $200 million for FY'11

Authorizes the use of the program to make incentive payments to farmers and authorizes 20% to be used for easements so long as these funds do not take cropland out of production.

Priorities enrollments that benefit imperiled species.
Section 222. Wetlands Reserve Program

Increases enrollment cap for WRP to not less than 250,000 acres in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 and not less than 250,000 acres in each of fiscal years 2004-2011.
Section 223. Conservation Reserve Program

Increases enrollment cap for CRP from 36.4 million to 45 million acres.

Reserves 7 million acres to enroll particularly sensitive lands through the continuous enrollment program and the conservation reserve enhancement program, but allows these acres to be used to enroll lands within the general CRP program if they have not already been used by 1998.

Allows up to 3 million acres in permanent easements for critically important environmentally sensitive lands, including 1 million acres of isolated wetlands.

Allows Secretary to transfer a permanent easement to a State or local government or a qualified nonprofit organization.

Allows continuous enrollment of buffers whose width and vegetation is designed to provide significant wildlife or water quality benefits.
Section 224. Conservation of Private Grazing Lands

Provides $20 million for each of fiscal years 2002-2011 in guaranteed funding for program to promote ecological health of grazing lands.

Expands authority of program to provide incentive payments to landowners through 5-, 10-, and 20-year contracts in addition to cost-share payments.
Subchapter D -- Grassland Reserve and Enhancement Program

Section 225 - Grassland Reserve and Enhancement Program

Establishes new program that uses contracts and easements to protect up to 3 million acres of environmentally critical grasslands, shrublands, and blufflands.

Half of acres are to be protected with permanent easements and pay fair market value of easement.

Half of acres are to receive incentive payments and cost-share assistance to enhance the environmental quality of the grasslands.

Secretary to establish criteria to evaluate and rank applications.
SUBTITLE D: ORGANIC FARMING

Section 231. Program to Assist Transition to Organic Farming

Authorizes $20 million for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, $40 million for fiscal year 2004, $40 million for fiscal year 2005, and $50 million for each of fiscal years 2006-2008 to assist organic producers and organic certification organizations in making transition from conventional to organic farming.

Payments available to cover infrastructure capital costs, technical assistance, initial market losses, certification costs, and market development costs both by new and existing organic farmers.

Payments to individual farm and ranch operators shall not exceed $10,000 per year.

Creates a national organic certification program to reimburse producers for the cost of organic certification.
SUBTITLE E: FORESTRY

Section 241. Urban and Community Forestry

Provides mandatory funding of $50 million for each of fiscal years 2002-2011 and authorizes to be appropriated an additional $50 million for each of fiscal years 2002-2011.
Section 242. Watershed Forestry Initiative

Creates a program to provide financial assistance to enhance the quality of municipal water supplies and to encourage long-term sustainability of private forestland at $75 million annually. Funding must be matched equally by any non-federal source for each of fiscal years 2002-2011 to acquire permanent easements that promote watershed protection.

Provides $25 million annually for fiscal years 2002-2011 to share with non-federal sources the cost of land management practices on non-industrial forestland that protect municipal drinking water supplies and other conservation purposes.

Creates a program to make grants up to $10,000 to develop and implement regional and watershed-based conservation plans. Provides a total of $10 million annually for fiscal years 2002-2011 for the program.
SUBTITLE F: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Section 251. Conservation Technical Assistance

Increases annual funding to $200 million for basic technical assistance.
Section 252. Reimbursement for Program Administration

Directs the Secretary to reimburse NRCS for the cost of administering conservation programs including CRP, WRP, EQIP, FPP, and other conservation programs.
Section 253. Conservation Technical Assistance by Third Parties

Authorizes USDA to contract with third parties to provide technical assistance to farm and ranch operators and establishes eight training centers at land grant colleges.
Section 254. Conservation Practice Standards

Directs NRCS to revise and update standards to include measurable goals for enhancing natural resources and to recognize innovative practices.

Requires revision of handbook within six months and thereafter every five years.
SUBTITLE F - MISCELLANEOUS CONSERVATION PROVISIONS

Section 261. Conservation Program Performance Review and Evaluations

Creates a program to monitor the benefits of conservation programs.

Ensures privacy of data collected for evaluation and review purposes.

Authorizes funding of $10 million annually for FY'02 through FY'11.
Section 262. Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control.

Directs the Secretary, in cooperation with the Great Lakes Commission, to carry out the Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control.

Authorizes $10 million annually for FY'03 through FY'11.
Section 263. Regional Equity

Directs the Secretary to revise compensation rules and selection criteria for all programs to ensure regional equity and recognize importance of enrolling some high value lands.
SUBTITLE H: CONSERVATION COORIDOR PROGRAM

Section 271. Conservation Corridor Program

Allows states, local governments and tribes to submit plans to coordinate all federal agriculture and forestry conservation programs in critical areas, watersheds

d corridors in an integrated manner with state and local programs.

Approval of plans may guarantee specific program resources for any conservation program, and automatic enrollment and may include special practice criteria and compensation rates.

Enrollments in plan must be of exceptional environmental value

Non-federal interests must contribute 20% of overall costs of plan but Secretary may waive for good cause and a showing of extraordinary natural resource benefits
Subtitle I -- Funding Source and Allocations

Section 281. Funding for Conservation Funding

Shifts $1.9 billion in each of fiscal years 2002 through 2001 for above detailed conservation programs from farm price and income support payments for grains, oilseeds and cotton. Does not affect dairy, sugar, tobacco or peanuts.

This amounts to a 15% reduction. Commodity payments in the first five years will still average $12 billion, more than twice the payments in the first three years of the last Farm Bill before Congress added "emergency payments.

Limits reductions to the ten percent of commodity recipients who would otherwise receive the greatest total payments under farm price and income support programs. (Because only 30% of all farms produce commodities and 90% of these farms are protected from reductions, reductions affect only 3% of all farms. These farms will still receive an estimated $6 billion per year in first five years, twice the level in the first three years of the last Farm Bill.)
Section 282. Minimum Guarantee of Conservation Funds by State

Directs the Secretary to ensure that each State receives at a minimum the State's share of the $1.9 billion on the State's share of total agricultural market value of production, with each State receiving not less than 0.52 percent and not more than 7 percent of such amount annually.
Subtitle J -- Rural Development

Section 291. Expansion of State Marketing Programs

Provides $10 million annually for FY'02 through FY'11 for federal-state market incentive payments.

Directs the Secretary to transfer to state agriculture departments and other state marketing offices at least 10 percent of market development funds for development of local and regional markets, including farmers markets.

[Micah]

Biggest complaint from farmers is where the funding for the conservation comes from.

---------------------------------------------
Subtitle I -- Funding Source and Allocations

Section 281. Funding for Conservation Funding

Shifts $1.9 billion in each of fiscal years 2002 through 2001 for above detailed conservation programs from farm price and income support payments for grains, oilseeds and cotton. Does not affect dairy, sugar, tobacco or peanuts.
---------------------------------------------

[LongBarrel]

The next paragraph states,

This amounts to a 15% reduction. Commodity payments in the first five years will still average $12 billion, more than twice the payments in the first three years of the last Farm Bill before Congress added "emergency payments.

The farmers are getting more than before. It was only reduced from the original amount. This money is put directly into conservation funding efforts.

Would it be fair to say that the Farmers are pissed because the money that historically has been given to them for conservation, CRP and WRP, has been rerouted to direct conservation efforts.

Maybe I am just a cynic...

[Po Monkey Lounger]

A few points. It appears that the farmers are still getting increased subsidies (out of my tax dollars) compared to previous years, just not as much as they had hoped --and many of them are now angry at DU, who last time I checked, does not run the country. This is not a subsidy "cut" by my definition. And moreover, before any farmer gets their panties in a wad over this, please explain to this taxpayer exactly why you need my tax dollars and what I am getting in return. It has appeared to me over many years, that the only thing most farmers are interested in is money. If there is no money in conservation, then they do not conserve; they clear cut timberland and make more cropland, not thinking twice about destroying irreplacable wetlands and hardwood bottoms. Now that duckhunting has become so popular, and they have figured out that they can make some money on this thing, they are only now seeing the "value" in flooding fields after harvest for the ducks. And to top it off, the federal government is paying them to not plant marginal farmland (that used to be pristine hardwood bottoms and wetlands)and to restore wetlands and timber bottoms through CRP and WRP programs. Do not get me wrong, I think these programs are great and should be funded to the maximum extent possible because they have had the biggest impact on the steadily climbing duck numbers over the last 10 years, and benefit me directly, even though I do not farm. But, since money is the primary motive of inducement, why does it not surprise me that the farmers are mad that they are not getting even more subsidies unrelated to conservation. Where is the benefit to me, as a non-farmer taxpayer, with non-conservation related farmer subsidies?? And BTW, that letter or statement (whatever it was) from Delta Waterfowl, purporting to either retract or disavow its support of the farm bill amendment, was the most wishy washy BS I have read in quite a while. Looked like a fence sitter to me. ( I am a proud member of Delta Waterfowl ---just calling it as I see it). This whole mess with the farmers against DU is even more perplexing to me in light of the fact that many, including DU, were very concerned that CRP and WRP programs would actually be cut back due to the budget problems created as a result of Sept.11. DU led a lobbying effort to save these programs, which apparently was successful ---- we will get increases, not cuts ----all assuming the bill passes and is signed by the president. My question is if Delta Waterfowl is not behind these results(increased CRP and WRP), then why not??

[goosebruce]

I can't give you all the details about the latest gig with DU, you all have kept up with it much more than I have. I was antiDU when antiDU wasn't cool. Good to see more people seeing through their propganda all the time.
You seem to have a hard time confusing peoples jobs with their ideals. Yeah, farmers do the right thing if it rewards them monetarily. If they don't get rewarded monetarily, they go out of business. You think that subsidezed farm makes more wildlife, or that stripmall? What do you get out of all this, supper, at a price you can afford. Is it perfect, hell no. But its the best system going to ensure the strength of our country. Villianizing farmers won't get you anywhere, no more than villianizing any occupation that works hard, makes the right choices, and still might go out of business. travis

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Not trying to villainize anyone. Just trying to understand why farmers not receiving more of an increase in subsidies than they are getting anyway, which subsidies are not tied to conservation (particularly CRP, WRP, etc), has anything to do with duck hunting and DU. This is a duck hunting board. CRP and WRP + water = duck production = good for duck hunters. It is real simple. I'm not against the farmers, I'm just for the ducks. As a taxpayer, I like a win-win solution. Farmers get my taxpayer dollars to do the right thing from CRP, WRP, and other such programs, and I get more duck production to help preserve the resource that fuels my obsession. What is wrong with that? Bubba, the only villainizing (is that a word?) that is going on here is the villainization of DU by the farmers. You are going to have to do better than this worn out "I won't be able to eat" mantra to convince me that the farmers have a legitimate beef about any of this mess. I've been eating quite well, thank you, with the previously less $ levels of commodity related subsidies (up to about 230lbs). And, I've personally been making it ok without any federal government subsidies (about 40 years). The only thing I ask of my federal government is to provide for the country's defense, stay out of my pocketbook, and leave me the hell alone (so far, they are not listening). So there. Chew on that awhile, and someone please come back with some specific facts and logical arguments to support your position or beef with DU on the farm bill hoopla, as opposed to emotional whining about not getting even more money than the farmers are going to get under the proposed bill (especially in light of the Sept 11 bombing, the war on terrorism, and the related budget crunch).

[torch]

DU HAS BEEN RUNNING 60 SECOND ADS IN MN, IA,AND IL. THEY WANT FARMERS TO STOP ALL SPRAYING. THEY CLAIM INSECTICIDES, HERBICIDES AND FERTILIZERS ARE DAMAGING BREEDING GROUNDS WICH MAY BE TRUE. BUT THERE IS NO WAY A FARMER CAN MAKE A CROP WITHOUT SPRAYING. [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img]