Elk Tag Future

[BuzzH]

Tom,

Who pays more in total taxes...90% of the tax payers that dont hunt...or the 10% who do? If 90% of the people who pay taxes dont hunt...how can you say the 10% of tax payers who hunt pay more? Me thinks your sums are a bit screwy...

Its a fact that non hunters as a group are paying WAY more in total taxes than hunters...I'd have to say around a ratio of $9-$1. Just a wild assed guess.

Thanks.

 

[raybow 1]

Ya know...... The National Park Service doesn't have a licence fee for hunting on their land........So what I can't figure is why more people don't take advantage of a free ride like those of us on welfare. Why pay them when they'll pay you!!! Nothin better than a good drunk via food stamps and a good steak compliments of the NPS.

 

[TOM IN TENNESSEE]

MATTK, you are TOTALLY INCORRECT on source of Pittman-Robinson funds and the similiar bill whose name I forgot on fishing gear. Excise taxes are collected on firearms, ammo, archery tackle and fishing gear and returned to states (after Feds take a cut) for wildlife mgmt. Hikers, bikers, birdwatchers pay NO excise taxes on their specialized equipment and have in fact lobbied against and defeated proposed legislation that would have imposed excise taxes on their specialized outdoor equipment.
BUZZ, we all pay fed, state and local taxes. Our enlightened legislators then distribute it for projects for the common good---some I like, most I don't. I fear I fell into your typical Liberal tactic of letting you change the subject and argue. The discussion was on user fees! Hunters and fishers must pay them. Others get a free ride.

 

[BuzzH]

Tom,

Whats more liberal than programs like CRP? Government paying farmers not to work...sounds pretty socialistic to me.

Theres no subject change, the fact is that 90% of the taxpayers pay for wildlife management via federal, state, and local taxes and they arent hunters. Since they make the choice not to hunt...they shouldnt pay any additional user fees. The 10% who choose to hunt, do pay a user fee to hunt the publics wildlife...and rightfully so. Most consumptive uses of federal and state resources require a user fee.

Pretty simple and I dont see what you're whining about.

 

[TLC]

paying farmers not to work?

Under CRP, farmers and ranchers enroll eligible land in 10- to 15-year contracts with USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). FSA administers CRP on behalf of CCC. Participants plant appropriate cover such as grasses and trees in crop fields and along streams. These plantings help prevent soil and nutrients from running into regional waterways and affecting water quality. The long-term vegetative cover also improves wildlife habitat and soil quality

looks the the participants have to redo their land to plant the appropriate grasses and trees. sounds like work to me?

 

[BuzzH]

Wish I only had to work every 10-15 years...

 

[ELKCHSR]

Whats more liberal than programs like CRP? Government paying farmers not to work...sounds pretty socialistic to me

The programs which are being argued about have nothing to do with Socialism in the context they are being bandied about

They have every thing to do with not allowing our farmers and ranchers to produce every thing they are capable of, leaving some lands fallow

This in turn would saturate the food markets and create gluts that make markets swing wildly

It's a form of economic control, not socialistic control

The basic concept could be construed as socialism, but that’s not what the intent is/was when it was started

I’m also guessing, no one is getting rich off these programs, nor are they making a “decent” living by letting their “private” ground sit empty

 

[BuzzH]

Cheese,

Time for some education.

For starters, do you have even the foggiest clue what "fallow" is? Do you know what the impacts are?

I really should let Nemont school you on what fallow is and why its done...but I think he's about given up trying to explain concepts to fools. So, I'll just leave it at that.

But, the important part about "fallow" for you here is that under CRP fields can not be left in "fallow" for many obvious reasons that would escape you.

Also, some farmers did get "rich" on CRP. I know more than a couple folks that actually bought fairly large land holdings...enrolled them in CRP...and paid off that land with CRP payments. To pay taxes for the next 10 years they leased hunting rights. Pretty lucrative program that will pay for the land you just purchased.

The CRP I helped fence in 1988 south of Great Falls was very lucrative for my friend. I have the exact figures, but will decline out of privacy, to disclose the amount he received...but it was a lot of $$$ in 1988. Hell, it would be a lot of money in 2008.

Also, you can argue all day about why the CRP was started. But, at the end of the day, a true Republican like yourself should be appalled and offended. I always thought that less government intrusion was one of the foundations of Republicans??? I guess your party has left you.

A government program that manipulates the economy, production of goods, or gives economic incentive to not work...are all forms of governmental control (socialism).

Better luck next time.

 

[TOM IN TENNESSEE]

BUZZ, I would like to totally and completely agree with your last sentence in your preceeding post!
I still pay user fees non hunters dont and contribute to Orgs that aquire and preserve habitat that non hunters dont!

 

[schmalts]

CRP is a joke. I too know a few guys who a little over a decade ago had the extra cash to buy great land here in WI, enroll it, and paid off the land with the payments. That same land is worth 5-8 times what it was when they first purchased it. Talk about a welfare system that the wealthy can take advantage of!
The WHIP program is just as bad

 

[ELKCHSR]

For starters, do you have even the foggiest clue what "fallow" is? Do you know what the impacts are?

1. Land left unseeded during a growing season.
2. The act of plowing land and leaving it unseeded.
3. The condition or period of being unseeded.
4. Left uncultivated or unplanted
5. Untrained; inactive: said esp. of the mind

Take your pick, I think I like 5 the best...

Also, some farmers did get "rich" on CRP. I know more than a couple folks that actually bought fairly large land holdings...enrolled them in CRP...and paid off that land with CRP payments. To pay taxes for the next 10 years they leased hunting rights. Pretty lucrative program that will pay for the land you just purchased

I'm guessing some means not very many...

Whhhhyyyyy, if it's such a great tool for any and all to get rich, you should just get right on it, then you won't have so many issues plaguing your every waking moment

Any thing else is just an excuse, and the land could be donated to the good of all and the betterment of human kind, to do with as only you have the power...

The CRP I helped fence in 1988 south of Great Falls was very lucrative for my friend. I have the exact figures, but will decline out of privacy, to disclose the amount he received...but it was a lot of $$$ in 1988. Hell, it would be a lot of money in 2008

This comes back to economics and the basic reasons I stated in my last post, in the truest sense, it is socialistic and better for the good of all, but its invention is/was a tool to keep some of the commodities markets a little more stable

His ground must be productive and valuable enough in the open markets making it a value for the government to put to bed or make fallow, so wildlife have a place to flourish on "private property"

And/or he also had a good lawyer to get top dollar out of his ground compared to many others who aren’t so fortunate...

The system is, as we both agree, broken, the smart ones will always find the loop holes no matter what system is in place, that’s just a matter of fact and history...

Also, you can argue all day about why the CRP was started. But, at the end of the day, a true Republican like yourself should be appalled and offended. I always thought that less government intrusion was one of the foundations of Republicans??? I guess your party has left you

I'm assuming (as usual in your case) you read into my last post only what you wanted to, then put words where none existed before...

A little over dramatic or drama queenish, wouldn’t you agree!!!

Still doesn't make much of it true, including the part of Republican...

A government program that manipulates the economy, production of goods, or gives economic incentive to not work...are all forms of governmental control (socialism).

Yea... So...

This would be basic common knowledge to any one who studies this sort of thing (from our past history though, I'm jumping to the conclusion you're just learning this very important concept... Good for You... I'm sincerely happy you’re starting to get it... Better late than never I always say )

To add one more point to the little tantrum you showed above (snicker, snicker)

I'm not certain what it was meant to prove or disprove, I don't see what the point is your trying to make, except maybe, being a very angry individual with a massive ego chip on his shoulder, still trying to prove some thing to others that doesn't need proving.... (shrug)

That’s on you my friend and your demon to live with...


I will say again, but now it's to late for this go around in the election cycle...

You need to run for el-presidente', there are a lot of people craving what you have to sell, or think you can offer, and I see you a damn site better than the other two in your party...

 

[BuzzH]

That post proves you dont have a clue about the CRP.

Not suprised about that.

Nice work Cheese.

 

[ELKCHSR]

I didn't see any thing asking about CRP Buzz...

I did see a question asking about fallow...

For starters, do you have even the foggiest clue what "fallow" is? Do you know what the impacts are?

Look familiar?

Now go back and slow read what I posted and what you posted...

There are a lot of fitting details in my last post related to your last post...

Beating around the bush about original reasoning behind the advent of CRP isn't conducive to this topic either...

 

[TOM IN TENNESSEE]

Buzz, where are you? Busy writing checks to Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, PeTA, HSUS, Audubon Society, Crane Federation, et al, ad naseum who have never bought or paid for one square inch of habitat? oh yeah, Forgot, yours and their's tax dollars made it all possible!

 

[Washington Hunter]

Actually from what I've seen on the Sierra Club's website, they do protect quite a bit of wildlife habitat, believe it or not. I suppose I could be wrong, it's been a while since I've looked at it. But what makes you think they don't?

 

[TLC]

who have never bought or paid for one square inch of habitat

they do protect quite a bit of wildlife habitat

WH, thinking there's a difference between buying and protecting? and what are those groups protecting it for/from? us big, old bad hunters?

 

[Washington Hunter]

TLC, well I'm not quite sure I understand your post...but first of all I was only commenting on the Sierra Club, not "those groups." The Sierra Club is not the same as PETA, not even close. I did a quick Google search and came up with this:

Sierra Club Reaction to False Accusations By the National Rifle Association, Sets the Record Straight on Gun and Hunting Policies

Bart Semcer, Washington Representative for Fish and Wildlife Issues

“The National Rifle Association (NRA) recently announced its resignation from the Outdoor Writers Association of America (OWAA), citing the Sierra Club’s involvement in the OWAA as the reason. The Sierra Club finds it unfortunate that the NRA choose to politicize both journalism and conservation by using divisive tactics and misleading statements.”

The 750,000 members of the Sierra Club remain committed to working with all Americans to conserve wildlife habitat and improve recreational opportunities. The Sierra Club believes that conservation of the natural world will only be achieved when diverse interests engage each other and maintain a dialogue about how to preserve a rich outdoor heritage for all. Our members will continue to work with all organizations and individuals interested in ensuring better hunting, fishing, hiking and boating opportunities for the American people and future generations.”

The Sierra Club is proud of our association with OWAA, which is a premier forum for outdoor communicators. OWAA is an organization with its roots in hunting and fishing, and we are committed to strengthening that legacy. In addition to other activities, in 2005 the Sierra Club will be sponsoring a new OWAA Excellence in Craft Award, the ‘Backcountry Sportsman Award.’”

For over a century, Sierra Club has been dedicated to exploring and protecting the natural world. We are a broad- based conservation organization with a diverse membership. Approximately 20 percent of Sierra Club members reported buying hunting and/or fishing licenses in the past year, and Sierra Club policy explicitly recognizes sport-hunting and fishing as a valuable wildlife management tool. Sierra Club also has an active political program dedicated to conservation, which in 2004 endorsed 40 members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and 19 candidates with an "A" rating or better from the NRA, seven more candidates than in the previous election cycle. Contrary to NRA assertions, the Sierra Club does not have a position on the right to own guns and does not seek to prohibit private ownership of firearms.”

 

[BigHornRam]

You Can Buy the Sierra Club's Spin if you Like WH

I won't. BTW a Sierra Club guy had an editorial a few weeks ago alluding to a Montana tourism boycott if Montana proceeds with a wolf hunt. Sorry I couldn't find a link to that editorial. Here's another article that exposes the true Sierra Club POV.

lawsuits assured
Northern Rockies Gray Wolf Delisted


By Peter Metcalf, 2-21-08


The Department of the Interior officially announced this morning the removal of the Northern Rocky Mountains population of gray wolves from the Endangered Species List.

“The wolf population in the Northern Rockies has far exceeded its recovery goals and continues to expand its size and range,” Deputy Secretary of the Interior Lynn Scarlett said in a statement.

The latest population counts show more than 1,500 wolves and 100 breeding pairs in the tri-state region, well above the established recovery minimums of 300 wolves and 30 breeding pairs.

The announcement affects only wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains, including all of the states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, a piece of north-central Utah and the eastern third of Oregon and Washington. Outside of this area and the Midwest, where wolves were delisted in 2007, gray wolves will remain endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

The delisting decision will not take effect until 30 days after the rule is formally published in the Federal Register, expected before the end of the month. Assuming there are no court challenges—and there will be—the states of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming will then assume full management for the wolves in their states.

A number of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife, announced their intent to file suit after the rule is published in an effort to stop the delisting.

“The Sierra Club is opposed to the delisting of the gray wolf right now and we do plan to file suit,” said Melanie Stein, associate representative of the Sierra Club in Wyoming.

Environmental groups around the region called the announcement premature and says it threatens to undo the decades of work and millions of dollars poured into wolf recovery efforts.

“We have spent a lot of time and money and it would be a real shame to see wolf numbers decline due to a premature delisting,” Stein said.

The Defenders of Wildlife spokeswoman Suzanne Stone agreed it was too early to turn wolf management over to the states and said the decision was based on politics, not on science.

“Three hundred wolves in the region is not a viable population period,” said Stone, citing the federal minimum.

Both environmental groups believe the federally approved state management plans are not sufficient to ensure the long term survival of the wolf in the region, and are particularly critical of Idaho and Wyoming’s plans.

“The wolf population will be significantly reduced and that is a step backward,” said Stone.

Conservationists argue current wolf populations are still too low to be considered genetically sustainable. The wolf population in Yellowstone also remains genetically isolated from the wolves in Idaho and the rest of Montana. Some scientists argue that the federal recovery minimum of 300 wolves is insufficient to maintain a healthy population across the region. They say 2,000 to 3,000 wolves are required across the region to maintain long-term genetic viability.

But not all reaction was negative. Jay Bodner, natural resource director for The Montana Stockgrowers Association, said he was encouraged by the federal government’s decision.

“We’ve met recovery goals for four or five years,” he said. “They looked at the science, they based it on science, not on emotion, and we support it 100 percent.”

 

[Washington Hunter]

OK, so maybe they are not as pro-hunting as we would like, but the point I was trying to make is that they are not PETA, or the HSUS, and probably shouldn't be grouped in with them. And I believe they are doing some good in protecting the environment.

 

[IDHunters]

I am a late entry to this thread and will admit up front to skipping many of the posts. But, regarding CRP:
Farmers were required to plant seed blends beneficial to wildlife, and potential wildlife habitat was one of the many areas "scored" prior to allowing the land into CRP. Farmers are also required to annually maintain the land and provide weed control. As Buzz noted with the fencing, it was also the landowners burden to fence out livestock.

Anyone with the risk tolerance to rely on a gov't program to pay for the land could have bought it, not just rich folks and I know plenty that did. When the program first came out in southern Idaho the CRP return was something like 11-12% of the value of the land. Many thought the initial 10 year enrollment would not last-we are in year 22 +/- now. Today, these same lands sell for about 6-7% cap rate, similar to any other commercial prop and a higher rate than most productive farmland (read "cheaper" than most productive farmland)

With the high commodity prices you will see a significant amount of CRP being put back into production.

Here in SE Idaho, the lands that get re-enrolled will do so primarily because of their sagehen and sharptail habitat-wildlife will be a higher priority than before, along with the HEL status. There will also have to be an increase in the program payments if they want CRP to continue.

CRP has been both a good/bad program. Initially it was a boom for wildlife, but after 20 years the stands are stagnant and in my opinion are hurting wildlife now. The restrictions against burning, mowing, grazing, etc have left a mono-culture of stagnant grasses. Deer will walk thru a CRP field to get to the winter wheat next door. Unfortunately, in some areas I hunt its almost 100% CRP.

O.K.-gotta go back to work. Carry on!